Colin McNamee

Michael,

The above remain outstanding arising from an earlier point you made.

michael mcgough

I know not or care what RKS said,he's history and in reality did the party more harm than good ,save for the legacy of more MEPs.Having failed in a leadership bid he was hardly likely to view his opponents in a favourable light.My original statement stands ,that the current NEC is dysfunctional.I drew no comparisons with earlier NECs but as you asked me if I knew any NEC members ,I stated I had.I met some of the current NEC recently and had a chat with Richard amongst others.I found him personable and good at working the room(essential in a politician) unlike a couple of others present.
But I must return to my earlier concerns about Richard,for it is he who sets himself up as the probity candidate and,if elected,will be checked over in depth by the press and our opponents.I have no problems that he is ex-tory,many of us are------but I do have issues over the timing of his departure from that party and with his experience both in business and political.I do not have that problem with DCB and I ,personally cannot treat DN as a serious leadership contender,although I understand his message(at least most of it).

douglas denny

[quote]I am going to intervene in this because the following is an outrageous lie:

Anthony Butcher quoted: "Richard's questions had absolutely no impact on the delay" (of the accounts).

Richard's questions certainly DID have an effect: they were the direct cause of the treasurer Andrew Smith declining to carry on as treasurer for the next year's session, (after doing a superb job previously). And therefore seriously delayed the accounts.

35 questions were posed by Richard Suchusorski (and Tony and others)and answers demanded in a short timescale, and Richard also demanded a full audit of the accounts there and then - in spite of the fact they were already in preparation, and Andrew Smith was beavering away at them to get them finished for the Electoral Commission, and for presentation to the auditors. I was shocked then; as I still am at the insensitive and arrogant demands made on the treasurer at that time by people who had not yet even taken their seats on the NEC ! They have covered-up this fax-pass ever since. Time to expose it, after that lie.

There is no doubt this caused a major disruption to the whole process of producing the accounts as we had to find a new treasurer - pronto, and he had to familiarise himself not only with the accounts papers in numerous boxes, but with the Commission too.

This is the direct cause of the delay in the official declaration of the accounts to the party membership and delay of the business meeting.

So don't lie Tony - if you are going to mention the details tell them as they really were !

Here is another:

All of the questions posed by Richard except (I think) three were answered by Alan Bown. This was discussed at the NEC too. Andrew Smith certainly did at least help in answering them in spite of by then having declined to continue officially because of the gravely insulting nature of the questions and they way they were presented.

Here is a quote from Andrew:

"I have looked into the questions which some of the NEC seem keen to ask. I have answered them so far as I can in the absence of the accounting records and vouchers.

I remain shocked that the new NEC members want to spend so much time looking into the past, as if there is some problem, rather than attending to the present and the future. For instance, some of them, who live close to Birmingham, might like to go in at weekends and reconcile the cash receipts for 2005 so the accounts can be drafted and audited in time for submission to the Electoral Commission within a month of today, approximately."

What was it you wanted from UKIP leadership Tony? Probity, openness, and clarity ...... ?

Douglas Denny.

Anthony Butcher

Douglas, why on earth are you jumping in with both feet like this? If you don't agree with something that I have said, then say so. If I have my facts wrong, then please do correct them; the last thing that I want is to be feeding incorrect information to the members.

Stomping in with accusations of lying is counter productive.
Hang on a minute. Andrew Smith wasn't forced to leave the position, he chose to. Let's have some personal responsibility here. His "resignation" was very much a surprise to everyone.

The questions themselves did not take up any of Andrew's time as treasurer, so it isn't a lie.

On top of that, the NEC was specifically told that the delay was due to branches not filing their accounts, rather than Andrew not completing the work. Was that untrue?
Answered is not the same as answered satisfactorily. IIRC, many of the answers given were "ask the South East treasurer" and similar answers - hardly of any use. We were of course grateful to both Alan and Andrew for the time spent answering the questions, but that doesn't mean that we were satisfied with the answers given or available to them.

You also seem to be confused about the order of events. The initial request was for an independent audit of the entire party's financial affairs, not just the central party. This would include the regional sub-units of which the Treasurer isn't responsible, so claiming that Richard was asking for duplication isn't exactly true. If it had been, then Andrew could just have passed over the audited accounts to Richard and that would have been the end of it.

After some negotiations, it was agreed, with Andrew Smith, that rather than an audit, it would be reduced to some detailed questions, to be presented by Richard. This seems like a reasonable compromise to me.

Yes, an accountant being asked financial questions. Very insulting. :roll:

I wasn't present in the meeting when the questions were asked, so I can't comment on their delivery, but this whole thing looks a bit trumped up to me. If I resigned every time someone on the NEC insulted me, it would be about once per month.

This is exactly the kind of thing that concerns us - where are the missing accounts? Why doesn't the treasurer have them? I can't believe that you are revealing that there are missing accounts here and in the same posting berating NEC members for being concerned about the accounts!

michael mcgough

"The questions themselves did not take up any of Andrew's time as treasurer,"

really?

C_steam

I can't believe there is a problem here. Any questions anyone has about accounts should be able to be answered simply, especially for someone with Richard's banking and financial knowledge.

the response from the treasurer goes somewhere along the lines of 'here are the books. They are up to date and complete. Please look for your self'.

I'm amazed this couldn't be done - and somewhat concerned as to the possible reasons as to why it could not be done.

Bluemerle

As I understand it, the NEC are responsible for any debts in the Party, surely it is their right to know exactly what is in the accounts. The fact that the accounts are late, the cancelled business meeting etc all raises worries.

prober

The huge amount of energy & agro on the matter of accounts is disturbing.

At the end of the day, a member of the board of directors ( ie an NEC member) has an absolute right to be have the complete picture of the party's financial situation and obligations ( ie adequate true and illuminating accounts ) so as then to address & move on . If Ashford is the problem & unorthodox procedure was used in order to ad hoc divert £ for a genuine election campaign in good faith ..... then lets have the truth, say tut tut for the record & then move on to the future ....not hide it as eventually the truth will come out after further destruction of relationships.

Can we be assured that this matter will be satisfactorily concluded by September & all the NEC are satisfied the have the financial picture ?
At least it will then shut up Watkins on this matter.

mkpdavies

Incredible.

The NEC being lambasted for wanting to check our accounts are all above board.

I'm sure there are plenty of people willing to turn a blind eye though.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Anthony Butcher

Yes. The questions weren't answered until after his "resignation".