Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013
From: REDACTED
To:
Subject: Fwd: More on the MEP selection process – the maladministration of Steve Crowther
——– Original Message ——–
|
Subject:
|
More on the MEP selection process – the maladministration of Steve Crowther
|
|
Date:
|
Sun, 01 Dec 2013 15:24:26 +0000
|
As ever more evidence appears regarding the maladministration taking place under the auspices of Steve Crowther, one has to wonder how he’s able to get away with it. It can be taken as read that Crowther is a bully, but bullies are inherently cowardly. Clearly, therefore, at least in my humble opinion, he is not acting in this way without the clear consent of A.N. Other(s).
Nothing shows this more clearly than in the debacle known as the UKIP MEP candidate selection process! Below you will find extracts from a statement made by a member of the NEC, as well as direct quotes from relevant NEC minutes.
A.
PS: The full statement is attached. In large part it deals with the removal of Mike Nattrass as a candidate, but what happened in the West Mids will be recognised in other regions!!!
NOTES REGARDING SUBMISSION OF STEVE CROWTHER
Mr. Crowther states an “independent panel” was used.
The panel finally used (and it was not appointed by the NEC when actioned) has at least six people who, in my opinion and personal knowledge of people within UKIP, I would NOT select for such a panel on the grounds of them having either potential self interest (as employees for example whose salary is dependent on the patronage of the Leadership), and/or, of being potentially subject to undue influence from the Leadership by being close friends (like John Moran and Mr Crowther); or very close to the Leader’s organisation for his European election campaign (such as Roger Bird).
I believe the pre-selection part of the process to be flawed, and fatally so from a democratic point of view for UKIP members.
The pre-selection process over which you have presided which you freely admit was carried out without proper resolutions obtained is, in my opinion, seriously flawed.
I believe the results are so anomalous, and have caused such widespread dissent in the party with those affected, as to indicate that one of two things has happened, or both:-
1) either that part of the process of selection has been seriously deficient in how it was developed and/or applied;
or
2) there has been maladministration in some form or another applied by one or more persons involved.
I disassociate myself from it as being the exact opposite of what was intended.
I believe it allows the possibility of, and certainly allows the accusation of, potential gerrymandering, and I believe is fatally flawed as a democratic process by not conforming properly in its development to the Party Constitution and Rules, also by potential maladministration and/or misapplication of the rules by the party chairman Mr. Crowther.
——————————–
Ref Minutes of NEC 13th May discussion of MEP Selection.
NEC Minutes of 13th May clearly state certain people who are well known in the party, of good repute, and of good standing were to be used for that panel.
There was no dissent of these people in the NEC and an amendment to T.3.2 was proposed and carried.
Those people listed were:-
George Curtis (NEC member);
Sebastian Fairweather (NEC member);
Jeffrey Titford (Ex Party Leader);
Rachel Oxley (Ex-NEC member and head of an Independent school);
Roger Bird (Chairman of the SE selection committee and Nigel Farage’s organiser for the European elections);
Steve Crowther (chairman of the NEC);
Peter Reeve (Party Nominations Officer).
The selection panel actually used however, was considerably different and was NOT approved by the NEC at that time, and contained people who would in my opinion, most certainly have caused considerable debate in the NEC as to their suitability.
…… with near 100% certainty one in particular, who was associated in one previous UKIP EU election in assisting the present Leader, as manager and director of a Telephone Call Centre for donations, which had a bank account set-up for the Leader’s region without the knowledge of the then Party Treasurer.{Refers to John Moran}
On the 17th Aug Steve Crowther requested a vote by e-mail of all the NEC, to make a resolution for the acceptance of a selection panel of three including himself, as he had not finished the process. This is after I had questioned the legality of the selection panels vis a vis UKIP constitution and rules, and is a tacit admission that the selection panels were indeed deficient by not having NEC approval.
The Party Secretary {Jonathan Arnott?} first claimed he had carefully examined all the papers regarding the MEP selection process, and said the whole of the selection process was legally sound in all respects {assuming this is Arnott speaking, his ability to make a ‘legal judgement’ is somewhat limited}.
He then later changed this opinion to an acceptance of what he called a “technicality” whereby the selection panel was deemed to be ultra vires because it had not been approved by the NEC.
On the 18th August, Steve Crowther then called for a retrospective vote of the NEC by e-mail to regularise the deficiency.
He wanted a rapid resolution within 24 hours.
The Party Secretary claimed this was legally acceptable {see above}, and claimed it would have made no difference to the acceptance of these people if it had been put to the NEC properly earlier.
This is an incredible statement.
As a long-standing NEC member I dispute this vociferously.
The selection panel contains a significant proportion of people who were NOT on the original list put to the NEC on the 13th May and would certainly have caused considerable debate and some dissent in the NEC with some of the newly introduced people.
It was discussed briefly at NEC that party employees should not be a part of the selection process because they might be considered to have a interest in that their salary is dependent upon the patronage of the party leadership; but that was never resolved one way or another with a vote.
——————–
Further to Ref: Paragraph 10
Para 13 states:-
“In this iteration of elections UKIP has worked especially hard to ensure that the process for selection of candidates has been as fair and transparent as possible”.
This is an incredible statement.
As an NEC member I do not feel this process has been transparent regarding the selection process at all.
In fact it is completely opaque to me as an NEC member representing the UKIP membership.
I cannot possibly say to the UKIP members “I know the process was undertaken with complete transparency and think it to be fair and equitable”.
I do not think that at all.
A sub-committee was formed but its required functions were never satisfactorily carried out, nor its deliberations presented properly to the NEC for ratification.
This resolution for the formation of a sub-committee is contained in the following:
Document:
MEP Candidate Selection Process 2013 Revised 29.04.13
provided by Steve Crowther says:-
The sub-committee will establish a Selection Panel comprising five members selected for their experience, judgement and availability who will oversee and manage the process.
This sub-committee and its formation is mentioned in document to the NEC from Steve Crowther:
marked:
NEC 7 January 2013 MEP SELECTION
which says:-
An NEC sub-committee was set-up in October, comprising members of the NEC who are not intending to stand for MEP selection.
NEC sub-committee:-
Steve Crowther,
George Curtis,
Douglas Denny,
Toby Micklethwait,
Alan Bown,
Lisa Duffy (a),
Peter Reeve (a),
Michael Greaves (a)
(a=Advisory)
That sub-committee only sat for two sessions only that I remember, (possibly three), but no minutes were taken, though they should have been, (which is why I cannot remember if two or three meetings occurred), and not even the sub-committee’s outline decisions were given as written presentation to the NEC; and no specific criteria for selection/assessment were ever discussed by that committee or the NEC.
As a committee it might as well have not existed.
Correct due process of the sub-committee, required by the NEC in a resolution (as above) was NOT carried out.
————————-
Another example of maladministration of the process used for MEP selection by Mr. Crowther, is that at the NEC discussion on the process, it was agreed that no member of UKIP of less than one year’s good standing would be eligible to stand as a candidate, ……
I am given to understand this NEC requirement in the selection rules of at least one year’s membership in good-standing for eligibility appears to have been ignored completely.
————————–
I have tried to ameliorate the problems by suggesting modifications to the process which could be easily implemented by resolution(s) of the NEC (obtained within the 24-hour format that Mr Crowther has already done in this case to retrospectively obtain correct due process), and for an extraordinary meeting of the NEC to be called rapidly (within the week) when I first raised my concerns with the party chairman; but all these protestations have been turned down by the Party chairman and NEC chairman Mr. Crowther.
Note: The author of the above, Doug Denny, was removed from the NEC for submitting these statements to the Party.
If you truly value democracy you must demand that Crowther is dismissed forthwith and that the whole selection process be revisited.
To do otherwise is akin to approving the aforesaid maladministration of Steve Crowther.
Make of this document what you will, but I for one find it to be further conclusive and irrefutable evidence of the corruption of any sort of acceptable democratic due process.That it is these same people who seek positions of Governance and the style of their corruption could well metastasise like a cancer to being a method of Governance in these United Kingdoms if they are allowed to continue their obscene self serving and self enriching behaviour shows them clearly to be unfit for purpose, unfit for public office and arguably to be criminally corrupt.
The following is a more comprehensive exposee of the abuse of authority and criminal style behaviour of UKIP leadership clique and its appointed claque:
NOTES REGARDING SUBMISSION OF STEVE CROWTHER
Ref Claim 3BM30448
Exhibit SJC1
Statement.
Douglas Denny.
NEC member.
Ref para 10. Mr. Crowther states an “independent panel” was used.
As the longest serving continuous elected member of the NEC I dispute this vociferously.
The panel could not be said to be “independent” in my opinon. There were people who could be said to have self-interest, or the Leader’s interests on the panel used.
The panel finally used (and it was not appointed by the NEC when actioned) has at least six people who, in my opinion and personal knowledge of people within UKIP, I would NOT select for such a panel on the grounds of them having
either potential self interest (as employees for example whose salary is dependent on the patronage of the Leadership),
and/or, of being potentially subject to undue influence from the Leadership by being close friends (like John Moran and Mr Crowther); or very close to the Leader’s organisation for his European election campaign (such as Roger Bird).
It is well known within the party, that the Leader Mr. Nigel Farage harbours grudges, and does not wish Mr. Nattrass to
be on the listing for MEP election because of the latter’s independent frame of mind and previous clashes of personality
with him over UKIP’s political directions.
Mr. Nattrass, however, is one of the longest serving members of UKIP with the greatest contribution to the party next to
the Leader Nigel Farage. His record of loyalty to the party is exemplary, he has spend a large amount of his time in his
life promoting and assisting the party; put literally many thousands of pounds of his own money into the party, and been
in most of the top positions serving the party eg: Deputy Party Leader; Party Chairman and Chairman of the NEC (the
position now held by Mr. Crowther).
That he has not been selected for the shortlist because, as Mr Crowther says: ” he simply came below the list of sixty
selected (because he is not good enough being implied)” is patently ridiculous in the extreme.
I wrote to Mr. Crowther:
I believe the pre-selection part of the process to be flawed, and fatally so from a democratic point of view for UKIP
members.
The pre-selection process over which you have presided which you freely admit was carried out without proper
resolutions obtained is, in my opinon, seriously flawed.
I believe the results are so anomalous, and have caused such widespread dissent in the party with those affected, as to
indicate that one of two things has happened, or both:-
1) either that part of the process of selection has been seriously deficient in how it was developed and/or applied; or
2) there has been maladministration in some form or another applied by one or more persons involved.
Had there been a selection of candidates by the previous process which was Regional selection by the membership;
almost certainly in my opinion, Mr. Nattrass would have come to the top of the listing for that region. To suggest he is
not good enough compared to some of those on the list accepted now is wrongful, highly anomalous and indicates there
is a severe breakdown somwhere in the process used. It is literally incredible.
This present process I helped to develop, but it has apparently become born as an abortion of that intended, which was to
allow the UKIP members a fair and clearly tranparent election of the best potential canidates to become UKIP MEPs. I
disassociate myself from it as being the exact opposite of what was intended.
I believe it allows the possibility of, and certainly allows the accusation of, potential gerrymandering, and I believe is
fatally flawed as a democratic process by not conforming properly in its development to the Party Constitution and
Rules, also by potential maladministration and/or misapplication of the rules by the party chairman Mr. Crowther.
——————————–
Ref Minutes of NEC 13th May discussion of MEP Selection.
NEC Minutes of 13th May clearly state certain people who are well know in the party, of good repute, and of good
standing were to be used for that panel.
There was no dissent of these people in the NEC and an amendment to T.3.2 was proposed and carried.
Those people listed were:-
George Curtis (NEC member);
Sebastian Fairweather (NEC member);
Jeffrey Titford (Ex Party Leader);
Rachel Oxley (Ex-NEC member and head of an Independent school);
Roger Bird (Chairman of the SE selection committee and Nigel Farage’s organiser for the European elections);
Steve Crowther (chairman of the NEC);
Peter Reeve (Party Nominations Officer).
The selection panel actually used however, was considerably different and was NOT approved by the NEC at that time,
and contained people who would in my opinon, most certainly have caused considerable debate in the NEC as to their
suitability.
Had those names been put to the NEC prior to the retrospective call for their appointment, and before they were used, I
would say some would most certainly have caused dissent, and with near 100% certainty one in particular, who was
associated in one previous UKIP EU election in assisting the present Leader, as manager and director of a Telephone
Call Centre for donations, which had a bank account set-up for the Leader’s region without the knowledge of the then
Party Treasurer.
On the 17th Aug Steve Crowther requested a vote by e-mail of all the NEC, to make a resolution for the acceptance of a
selection panel of three including himself, as he had not finished the process. This is after I had questioned the legality of
the selection panels vis a vis UKIP constituion and rules, and is a tacit admission that the selection panels were indeed
deficient by not having NEC approval.
The Party Secretary first claimed he had carefully examined all the papers regarding the MEP selection process, and
said the whole of the selection process was legally sound in all respects. He then later changed this opinon to an
acceptance of what he called a “technicality” whereby the selection panel was deemed to be ultra vires because it had not
been approved by the NEC.
On the 18th August, Steve Crowther then called for a retrospective vote of the NEC by e-mail to regularise the
deficiency. He wanted a rapid resolution within 24 hours. The Party Secretary claimed this was legally acceptable,
and claimed it would have made no difference to the acceptance of these people if it had been put to the NEC properly
earlier.
This is an incredible statement. As a long-standing NEC member I dispute this vociferously.
The selection panel contains a significant proportion of people who were NOT on the original list put to the NEC on the
13th May and would certainly have caused considerable debate and some dissent in the NEC with some of the newly
introduced people.
The ‘new’ listing of people was:-
Steve Crowther
Chairman of the Party and NEC. Designated chairman of the Selection Panel.
Peter Reeve
National Nominating Officer, and party employee.
George Curtis
NEC member of long standing,
Sebastian Fairweather
NEC member
Jeffrey Titford
Former MEP, former Party Leader, current Party President.
John Harvey
Former NEC member
Rachel Oxley
DID NOT PARTICIPATE. Former NEC member and Party Vice-Chairman.
Steph McWilliam
Chairman of Cornwall
Harry Aldridge
Former Chairman of Young Independence
John Moran
Long-term activist and donor. Founder director of the Ashford call centre.
Chris Cassidy
Treasurer of Young Independence.
Recently appointed National Database Manager at Lexdrum House. Party employee.
Derek Clark
Retiring MEP, long-term former NEC member.
Will Gilpin (stand in)
Party Chief Executive. Used once as a stand-in when John Moran was unable to attend a London meeting. Party
employee.
Roger Bird
Surrey County Chairman. SE Regional commmittee and likely organiser of Nigel Farage’s European election campaign.
Of these; Steve Crowther; Wil Gilpin; Chris Cassidy; Peter Reeve are party employees. It was discussed briefly at
NEC that party employees should not be a part of the selection process because they might be considered to have a
interest in that their salary is dependent upon the patronage of the party leadership; but that was never resolved one way
or another with a vote.
——————–
Further to Ref: Paragraph 10
Para 13 states:-
“In this iteration of elections UKIP has worked especially hard to ensire that the process for selection of candidates has
been as fair and transparent as possible”.
This is an incredible statement.
As an NEC member I do not feel this process has been transparent regarding the selection process at all. In fact it is
completely opaque to me as an NEC member representing the UKIP membership. I cannot possibly say to the UKIP
members “I know the process was undertaken with complete transparency and think it to be fair and equitable”. I do not
think that at all.
All that was achieved by NEC resolutions was an agreement for outline process stategy, such as the change from
Regional to a National ballot of members; of a selection process where all candidates would be ranked by a points
system; and to use an outside agency for “psychometric testing” as part of and only as an additional assistance to the
points system testing/assessment.
The most important and crucial part of the whole process however, i.e. the deciding of the actual criteria for
discrimination of the MEP candidates in the selection process was to be delegated to a sub-committee of which I was a
member; of non-interested persons i.e. not taking part in the MEP election.
In fact, to ensure ‘transparency’ and equitability, the NEC decided that all aspects of the MEP selection process was to
be decided by a delegated sub-committee specifically for the purpose, and this was decided by the NEC months before.
A sub-committee was formed but its required functions were never satisfactorily carried out, nor its deliberations
presented properly to the NEC for ratification.
This resolution for the formation of a sub-committee is contained in the following:
Document: MEP Candidate Selection Process 2013 Revised 29.04.13
provided by Steve Crowther says:-
The sub-committee will establish a Selection Panel comprising five members selected for their experience, judgement
and availability who will oversee and manage the process.
This sub-committee and its formation is mentioned in document to the NEC from Steve Crowther: marked:
NEC 7 January 2013 MEP SELECTION
which says:-
An NEC sub-committee was set-up in October, comprising members of the NEC who are not intending to stand for MEP
selection.
NEC sub-committee:-
Steve Crowther, George Curtis, Douglas Denny, Toby Micklethwait, Alan Bown, Lisa Duffy (a), Peter Reeve (a),
Michael Greaves (a)
(a=Advisory)
That sub-committee only sat for two sessions only that I remember, (possibly three), but no minutes were taken, though
they should have been, (which is why I cannot remember if two or three meetings occured), and not even the subcommittee’s
outline decisions were given as written presentation to the NEC; and no specific criteria for
selection/assessment were ever discussed by that committee or the NEC. As a committee it might as well have not
existed. Correct due process of the sub-committee, required by the NEC in a resolution (as above) was NOT carried out.
To this day I have no idea what criteria were decided upon for discrimination between candidates – that ended up entirely
under the jurisdiction of one person and of his devising – that is Steve Crowther chairman of the NEC. Mr. Crowther
never never put any of those crucial criteria forward for acceptance or discussion by the sub-committee (as should have
been done) – nor even to the the full NEC.
He took it upon himself to go ahead regardless.
————————-
Another example of maladministratoin of the process used for MEP selection by Mr. Crowther, is that at the NEC
discussion on teh process, it was agreed that no member of UKIP of less than one year’s good standing would be eligible
to stand as a candidate, but that an appeal panel would be formed to consider special cases on appeal if, for instance, a
high profile candidate appeared.
I am given to understand this NEC requirement in teh selection rules of at least one year’s membership in good-standing
for eligibility appears to have been ignored completely. There are some on the short list with less than one year’s
membership I am told, whereas Mr. Nattrass has been an active member from shortly after the inception of the party.
————————–
It is my honest belief that due process has not been carried out properly by the Party under the remit of the Party
Chairman to the detriment of a number of potential candidates including Mr. M. Nattrass. That Mr. Nattrass has a just
case for complaint; and that the process as applied was deficient in transparency and fairness to all.
I have tried to ameliorate the problems by suggesting modifications to the process which could be easily implemented by
resolution(s) of the NEC (obtained within the 24-hour format that Mr Crowther has already done in this case to
retrospectively obtain correct due process), and for an extraordinary meeting of the NEC to be called rapidly (within
the week) when I first raised my concerns with the party chairman; but all these protestations have been turned down by
the Party chairman and NEC chairman Mr. Crowther.
Douglas Denny.
.
Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W)
. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
Reply
Ukip-vs-EUkip 