Max Evidence 18 MyResponse to ERO PB on allegations 9May'13

Max Evidence 18 MyResponse to ERO PB on allegations 9May'13

To: 'Wales Green Party Council' <wgprc@lists.greenparty.org.uk>
From: Max Wallis/smamkw/CardiffUniversity
Date: 09/05/2013 17:54
Cc: "John Evans", 'Chyba' 
Subject: Re: Members Newsletter - Pippa's demand on WGPC for E-mail to Members

Pippa has been rather slow with her late-night demand (00:21) for an email

“to all WGP members… underlining that none of these allegations have any substance whatsoever.”  

While she may feel persecuted, general advice on e-mailing says desist from rushing out demands late at night, but reflect in the cold light of day.  

I gave Pippa a preview of the letter to-the-Editor and opportunity to respond to it nearly 2 weeks ago. Her new answers summarised by "None of the allegations are true" don't seem to respond to its specific points.  At Ann Were's suggestion, I printed those points in full from Pippa's reply to Penny Kemp (ext comms).  

The total in the Newsletter might or might not work to Pippa's advantage in Euro-list electoral terms. But as second issue, what are the "allegations" in it she is wanting the WGPC to declare have "no substance"? 

Perhaps Pippa didn't know of Toucan System's relations with Thales weapons company, or they’ve developed since she quit as Director in 2003. But is there "no substance" in these relations, on top of the unconvincing “one keyboard” story?After Pippa left Encrypta Electronics, she was still part-owner of this family business, a company she'd started. Maybe just her partner/ex-husband didn't consult her on the work for AWRE Aldermaston. If there's "no substance", did Pippa revoke her part-ownership of Encrypta prior to taking on the AWRE contract and the company's end in 2003? 

Pippa accuses me of “wild allegations about (her)” at the Cardiff UNA meeting. Yet that was a briefing on Thales 'Warthog' military vehicles, with a subcontract from Abercycnon-based AB Electronics backed by the Welsh Government. My question to Pippa asked if she could help with inside information, seeing that Encrypta used to subcontract much work to AB Electronics. Pippa's depicting as “wild allegations” a request to help find more information can only raise suspicions.

As bankruptcy is a common way for businesses to walk away from debts, after moving their assets elsewhere, I see the question of bankruptcy of the family business Encrypta in 2003 as quite legitimate. I'm unaware that it's been raised before, not in answers to Penny Kemp of last summer.

However, Pippa writes:

When I was first elected as leader, Penny Kemp (ext comms) asked me for a full breakdown of everything she might need to know. A full disclosure was given, and WGPC was copied in at the time.

This means in early 2012, which I and other new members would not have seen.  So could it be circulated again?

Hwyl / Max

To: John Evans 
From: Max Wallis
Date: 09/05/2013 19:59
Cc: Chyba 
Subject: Re: [WGPC] Members Newsletter - Euro-list candidates
Dear John,

Thanks for your painstaking explanation on validity when no answer is given. John Matthews also did not answer Q4. We're learning too, probably Rozz did not realise the disadvantage of not repeating her minimal words on the nomination form, but if that's what the rules say....

On the non-printing of your e-mail, that said "personally" - sorry I didn't let you know that I decided not to include it but to follow Ann's suggestion. Though I also am critical of the misuse of anonymous letters to the editor, they sometimes appear with no reason given.  The Wikileaks persecution shows one reason for.  Also we now see Pippa on the warpath over a mild criticism ("doesn't ring true") plus 2 questions, so do we have adequate protection for whistleblowers in the GP? A short mention that one member of the WGPC opposed publication would not have done you justice; I'm ready to run balanced arguments on the anonymity principle next time.  

  Hwyl / Max

-----John Evans  wrote: -----

To: Max Wallis <WallisMK@cardiff.ac.uk>
Date: 08/05/2013 22:08
Cc: Chyba
Subject: Re: [WGPC] Members Newsletter - Euro-list candidates

Dear Max,

The fact that Pippa did not answer Q4 on her nomination form does not invalidate the nomination.

There is not a requirement for a candidate to answer all the questions, it is only advisory, as below copied from page 2 of the nomination form.

NOTE that ‘complete’ does not mean that you have to provide an answer to every question if you do not wish to do so. However, you are STRONGLY ADVISED to acknowledge each one, stating that you have nothing to say should this be the case, rather than leaving a blank.

To clear up your question, "should it not still be stated with the voting paper material?"

I sent out the ballot papers and candidate statements, the nomination forms are available on the members website. All the information needed for a member to inform themselves of how they wish to use their ballot paper is readily available. 

The constitution requires that the content of the nomination form is made available to the membership before the hustings. This has been done via the members website and you provided a link to this information in the members newsletter. I took the final decision to make it available in this format. This is also the format used by the London Federation, which was deemed acceptable by the European Election Tribunal. So this can no longer be deemed a contentious issue.

Regarding Rozz Cutler. As I have told you before, Rozz was offered the opportunity, along with the other candidates to produce a statement to be included with the ballot paper. Rozz obviously decided not to do this, as I didn't receive one from her by the deadline. As Rozz is standing as a paper candidate only I can only assume she didn't feel it necessary to produce a statement in support of her nomination. The personal statement she provided on her nomination form is available for the members to view on the members website. 

I believe I have done everything that could be reasonably expected of me, to make as much information as possible regarding the candidates available to the members, which will allow them to make informed decisions.

I trust this will satisfy you, that everything is now in order regarding the nomination and ballot process.

Regards

John Evans

P.S. Could you please do me the courtesy of answering the question I posed to you in my e-mail of 05/05/2013. Copied here. Secondly regarding, Letter to the Editor. In an e-mail I sent to you on 29/04/2013 I demanded that if you printed this and the writer remained anonymous that you print my e-mail in its entirety alongside the letter. I notice from the newsletter that this person is not named, therefore by definition is anonymous. I therefore ask you why you didn't print my e-mail as requested?

On 8 May 2013 18:07, Max Wallis <WallisMK@cardiff.ac.uk> wrote:

Dear John,

I've got agreement of the 'anonymous' writer to let you know his name by word of mouth.

Chris Simpson wasn't at the AGM, so mis-remembers or was misinformed.

I'd noticed too that Pippa did not answer the personal disclosure question; if that does

not invalidate her form, should it not still be stated with the voting paper material?

Most people of course would not check the nomination forms but expect them to be in 

order, and just select their votes on the basis of the candidates statements. 

This adds to my concern that the Voting material did not a statement from Rozz.  It

could have reproduced her brief past experience and reasons for standing that are on 

her nomination form. 

With regards  / Max