letter heading

Members may not be aware of the WSRA trustees tactics using WSRA resources to unfairly canvas members during the 2014 trustee elections.

When the WSRA 2014 trustee elections were formally announced in a paper sent to all members, one trustee candidate’s name was missing. That omission required a correction and a re-issue. These things happen and the WSRA were (fairly) quick to rectify the situation.

The re-issued paper was accompanied by a letter, on what looked like WSRA headed paper (it wasn’t but it still carried the WSRA’s postal address and requested any correspondence to be sent there).

The letter was sent on behalf of the three trustees who were up for re-election, Peter Chidzey, Dick Holland and Nigel Bruce-Robertson, who used the letter to canvas support for their re-election as trustees.

Other candidates were not aware the letter was being prepared nor offered the chance to use the letter to canvas members, and the letter was a total surprise when it arrived with the re-issued paper.

Thus members were treated to a further canvassing from the three re-electee trustees only, in a letter which was sent out by the WSRA itself to members. It is not a matter of who paid for what (there was a suggestion at the time that one of those three had paid for the mass-copying of the letter and/or paid for the postage) but a matter of the WSRA being seen to be fair to all candidates when using its processes and resources and databases.

After the election itself, at which all three re-electees were duly re-elected, it was later admitted by one of the re-elected trustees that the fate of those unelected candidates unable to use the advantage of further canvassing courtesy of the WSRA was “collateral damage”. In other words, the WSRA trustees as a whole made a deliberate move to thwart rival candidates by taking advantage of the WSRA’s members resources.

We will leave members to consider whether the tactic used by the three re-electee trustees was fair or not.