CHARITY TOTING REFORM.
ITO THE EDITOR OP THE "SPROPAT011.1
Sra,—It cannot be doubted that many of those who are engaged in charitable and social work have realised how great an obstacle to efficient administration is the so-called "voting system," by which the benefits of a given institution are Obtained by the votes of subscribers. The abolition of this system has for long been advocated by the Charity Voting Reform Association (No. 3 Room, Denison House, Vauxhall Bridge Road, S.W.) Its evil results are various. Not the most deserving cases tend to be elected to the benefits of the charity, but those who, by influence, solicitation, or money, can procure the most votes. Much money is wasted, much energy is fruitlessly spent. Many hopes are raised only to be disappointed. In the weary process of obtaining votes there sometimes occurs a marked deterioration of character. Careful selection by a committee is the only proper method of election. To seek for a quid pro quo for a subscription in the shape of votes is a degradation of charity. If it be asked how could the system be abolished when once established, it may be noted that some institutions have already either greatly restricted or wholly abandoned this vicious method of election. It can hardly be contended that the payments of subscribers bind a society irrevocably to an antiquated form of adminis- tration injurious to its own best interests and objects. It might be resolved at a general meeting of the members of a voting charity that all future subscribers should no longer have " votes." An increasingly large number of persons already place their votes in the bands of the committees of their respective institutions. The change advocated by the Charity Voting Reform Association would be the final and
logical outcome of this usage. It would inevitably work fort the purer and better administration of all charities concerned.' The most deserving candidates would be mach more certainly. elected (and without delays, expense, and degradation) to the benefits of the institution. Those who are interested in the subject would do well to apply for further information to the, secretary of the Charity Voting Reform Association at the address given above.—I am, Sir, &c.,
C. G. MONTEFIORE. 12 Portman Square, W.
[Our sympathies are wholly with Mr. Montefiore's pro- poaals.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
