I also believe the membership has been misled or caused to misconstrue the importance of a ballot and that as a result the Institution's integrity and democratic processes have been undermined (Letters last week).
Things can only be put right by holding a binding referendum on the single member issue - as originally promised to the wider membership - or by a re-run of the original flawed ballot on corporate status - a 'startagain' scenario.
The Chief Executive & Secretary's response to Roger Sainsbury's letter failed to address the fundamental issue - that the running and outcome of a ballot (in which members were misinformed - albeit unintentionally) on a fairly noncontentious issue was used to avoid a referendum on a much more significant and profound change. The end does not justify the means.
The Institution should be the guardian of integrity and high ethical standards in the profession. If it fails in the running of its own affairs and in its relationships with its members, how can it possibly have any credibility in seeking to uphold - enforce - such standards in its dealings with the public as aggrieved complainants over a member's actions or indeed with individual members?
Whatever the reasons or original (possibly good) intention behind the process, the matter cannot be allowed to rest here. The related issues about integrity, ethics and the undermining of the democratic processes are too great. An immediate assurance that Council will be advised at its next meeting to hold a binding referendum is the least that anyone should expect.
David Green, Past President email@example.com