ACCA makes great play of its investment in information technology and how it can communicate with its members. Is this really libertarian or is a way of further controlling information to members?

ACCA's controllers claim that they need  the 'delegated proxy voting system' because members do not have an opportunity to learn enough about what the election candidates really believe. In the age of information technology this is a nonsense. Individuals are available on e-mails and information can be held on web sites. Increasingly, in presidential, national, local, regional, mayoral, trade union and other elections web sites are used to provide information on a relatively low cost to people.

But ACCA's bureaucrats fear any exchange on information amongst members unless of course they control it all.  Prem Sikka, a candidate for the 2000 council election, has mentioned the AABA web site address in his election statement. Michael Sleigh, writing for the ACCA, has stated that he will delete the web site address from the published statement even though Prem Sikka has not agreed to such censorship. What gives ACCA this authority?

Despite requests, Michael Sleigh has been unable (or is unwilling) to provide any information. He claims that ACCA has taken a legal opinion but won't provide a copy. Does one exist? He claims that the council decided on the matter but refuses to provide a copy of the relevant minute(s). Then on 29th February 2000 he wrote to say that the decision was made at the "last meeting" of the ACCA council. The "last meeting" was on 17th February 2000. The deadline for submitting election papers was on 6th February. Yet by that date no information was sent to any candidate to say that web site addresses cannot be used. As usual, ACCA officials are making up the election rules as the go along.

Let us look at the people who attended the  Council's "last meeting". Under ACCA rules one-third of the council has to retire. So the people who made the decision on 17th February included those who are candidates for the 2000 election. They were making their decision after seeing the election statement from Prem Sikka. They had a conflict of interest. Yet they attended the council meeting and made a retrospective decision.

Only Prem Sikka has been told that he cannot mention the web site address in his election statement. Other candidates have not received any such information. This restriction is not mentioned in the information pack that all candidates receive. Are ACCA officials engaged in a  racist policy or some other unexplained vendetta? Surely, all candidates should receive the exact same instructions.

ACCA is not just an accountancy body but also a 'public body' since it acts as a regulator. All public bodies have to operate in accordance with civilized rules and norms. Does ACCA? Like King Canute, ACCA is now engaged in trying to roll back the tide of information. Its failure is guaranteed.