Practical Reasons

Sir,—In accusing the executive of "a grave breach of principle" (see "Salient," March 9) you have given a misleading interpretation of the facts.

The primary obligation of any duly elected executive is to administer the affairs of the association in the most efficient manner possible. To help them with this the executive is given the power to co-opt an assistant secretary—the person whom they consider will be of most use! Co-option is entirely unconnected with the elections and is a matter for the executive only. There can be no obligation, "moral" or otherwise, to co-opt a person who was defeated, by however narrow a margin, in the elections if that person would not be the best possible addition to the executive. As it happened, the defeated candidate was considered before others and it was for practical reasons—for instance, he was not then on the telephone either at home or at business—that his nomination was defeated.

Surely the clause which says a coin should be tossed in the event of two candidates getting an equal number of votes was written into the Constitution with the express purpose of avoiding the impractical solution of electing both?