MUT election candidate surprised by ‘hostility’ against his campaign

A number of candidates running for election to the Malta Union of Teachers’ executive council have today aired further grievances following a number of episodes that have put into question the good faith of certain members of the council and the fairness of the entire electoral process.

Union general secretary Franklin Barbara, who is running for the post of MUT president, said at a press conference – attended only by MaltaToday – that he could not understand why his decision to contest the post had been met by such hostility.

“And even if MUT president Kevin Bonello said he was impartial, I believe that in certain instances he was biased, or gave that impression,” he said. “I can honestly say that I have led a positive campaign of empowerment for all educators.”

In a statement on Thursday, the union said that the elections were put on hold after all the members of electoral board resigned and that an urgent council meeting would be held on Tuesday to decide whether to appoint professional auditors to take care of the election or call an extraordinary general meeting.

On Wednesday, the MUT said in a meeting held that afternoon, the council had accepted to set up a working group and hire the services of professional auditors to restart the election process from scratch.

The union said that the board did not disclose a reason behind the collective resignation.

Barbara, who will face the union’s senior vice-president, Marco Bonnici, for the top post, said that when he announced he was running in the election, he immediately sense hostility against him and his decision.

He said that he and a number of other candidates had asked for a list of the registered voters, but they were told they did not need it.

“We also asked that candidates be allowed to rubber stamp each vote submitted, but our demand was met with derision and we were told that this would lengthen the process unnecessarily,” Barbara said.

He said that the council also refused to present a certified account of the number of ballots printed.

MaltaToday understands that while the council acknowledged that some 100 extra votes had been printed by the offset printer, no one could account for the exact number of additional votes printed, what had been done with them, whether they had been securely disposed of or if they were still in anyone’s possession.

An incident on Wednesday was the last in a series to raise serious questions as to possible collusion between some candidates and members of the council and the electoral board.

Barbara said that he and two other colleagues were walking up St Joseph High Road in Hamrun at around 7.15pm – a couple of hours after filing a judicial process in court to ensure that the electoral process be truly transparent and fair for all candidates – when they noticed two members of the electoral board heading towards the MUT offices, which – for a change – were still open at that time.

Barbara said that after a while they noticed the two officials were trying to hide inside an alley and when they confronted them, the officials said they were going to the offices because they had resigned.

“At that point Bonnici came out of the MUT offices and ushered them inside,” he claimed. “We protested against having a candidate meet the electoral board on his own and we protested even further when we realised that Bonello and another candidate, Norman Grech, were also inside the building.”

Barbara said he hoped that the council will decide to bring in an audit firm to manage the election – something he and his like-minded colleagues had been asking for from the start – as that would guarantee a fair and honest process.

“We are after all doing this in the best interests of all MUT members who deserve better conditions of work,” he said. “Our whole programme is built around our core belief in the need for educators to be appreciated as professionals.”

Reply by MUT President as right of reply to news reported

Reference is made to an article published by your newspaper on the 28th of April, which article reports a press conference held by Mr Franklin Barbara.

By means of this reply I would like to clarify a number of inaccuracies reported so as to safeguard the integrity of the Union I represent as well as its outgoing election board.

1. Mr Barbara has been General Secretary of the MUT for the past 10 years.  As the person responsible for the Union’s statute he had the duty to draw the attention of council and general conference if he thought that the electoral process it contained was not clear enough. Unfortunately Mr Barbara only came up with objections and additions to the long established process well after he nominated himself for candidacy, precisely a few hours before the election board starting processing the vote documents.
2. The requests put forward by Mr Barbara were numerous and most of the requests were already acceded to. His request to stamp the votes himself with a personal vote could not be taken on board for the simple reason that his requests were handed to the board on the day they started to work on the votes. Mr Barbara knew about the schedule of work of the board well in advance and had he sent his requests before, the board would have been in a much better position to consider them all favourably since there would have been ample time to communicate the decisions taken to the other candidates. I am quite positively sure that everyone would agree that having one candidate putting a personal stamp on the voting document while the other candidates were in the dark would not have been exactly the ideal situation.
3. The claim that the number of votes printed was unknown is false. The Union has receipts and job cards which show the exact number of votes printed as well as the exact number of voters eligible to vote. The MUT, as all entities with hard copy voting system, always prints extra votes in the election because there are always members who ask for a change of document due to mistakes while voting. This was very well known to Mr Barbara, given that as general secretary he was often coordinating this process himself in the past. Moreover the election board, as has been done in the past elections of the 98-year-old union, had already explained to Mr Barbara and his supporters a number of times how the extra votes will be disposed of if unused. 
4. The incident reported by Mr Barbara, as explained to him a number of times already but which explanation he apparently chose to ignore, was a combination of sorts. To start with Mr Barbara’s objection to a candidate having a meeting with the election board is beyond his remit, especially when considering that he himself held a meeting alone with the election board on the first day of vote processing and without any prior notice. Secondly, unlike the impression given, the election board members (who ended up being photographed without authorisation) did not visit the union to meet any candidate but they visited the union more than 12 hours after they resigned for the sole purpose of sealing the election room door as advised by the Union’s lawyer in my presence. The fact that there was Mr Bonnici and other persons in the building was not the board’s fault. The election board chairperson as well as another colleague agreed a time with me which was convenient to both and I was waiting for them for the sole purpose of sealing the door.
5. Mr Barbara is reported to have said that I, the current President, was biased. If carrying out my duty of defending the integrity of the MUT’s structures, myself, and the volunteers appointed for the election board means that I am biased then so be it. If being biased means siding with one candidate and not with another then I ask Mr Barbara to provide evidence dated as from his notice of candidature of this claim. 

To conclude the MUT will be convening an ad hoc council meeting to decide a way forward, which will be communicated to all members accordingly.