CLERICAL UNION POSTAL BALLOT

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22551, 5 November 1938, Page 24

CLERICAL UNION POSTAL BALLOT

TO TH» EDITOR Ot TH» PRESS Sir,—l want if possible to clear up the misunderstanding which seems to have arisen as a result of the statements of the president of the Canterbury Clerical Union, which appeared in your issue of Saturday, October 29, and my reply of October In the first place; I think it is well to state that whatever has been said was not intended as of a personal nature, but shows the marked divergence of views held regarding the procedure of the postal ballot; and there was no intention of casting any personal reflection the president or members of the executive. It had been decided that no declaration would be made until the matter had been finalised, but as a statement of the position had been published the president thought it advisable to clarify the position,' without any intention of over-riding the wishes of the executive. I think it is clear that- once I was appointed returning officer and the ballot papers had been sent out, it was my duty to determine the result of the ballot in accordance with the rules and with the instructions on the ballot paper. If any doubt should arise as to the validity or otherwise of any vote or votes, the onus of determining the matter appears to be mine. In the present case, I counted the votes on the evening of October 25 after the close of the poll, and my declaration of the result of the poll was duly made and witnessed by the scrutineers. At that time I anticipated that in accordance with the previous

practice of the union, country votes received the following day and bearing the postmark up to 5 p.m. on Tuesday, October 25, would be subsequently admitted and the declaration amended accordingly. When, however, I found the legality of admitting these 12 votes, or of excluding the 26 votes similarly posted in Christchurch would be called in question, I considered my position and came to the conclusion that all votes received after the time specified for the close of the poll should be excluded. I accordingly decided that the result of the poll was in accordance with the declaration signed by myself as returning officer and the two scrutineers on the evening of October 25. The president stated he was not interested in precedents when referring to the previous practice of the union in admitting only country votes the following morning after the close of the poll, but I wish to say that Mr Gillespie was president, and the present vice-president was in office when the previous postal ballot was held for electing the present executive. The question of the disputed minute is easily answered (the inference may have been taken that it was incorrectly recorded). The last special meeting of the executive, however, when the mover was prsent, confirmed the disputed minute without alteration.— Yours, etc., T. NUTTALL, Returning Officer. November 4, 1938.