This is 'information'  repeated in the recent BN magazine.
No one 'culpable' - pull the other one Mr. Farrar. The evidence of
culpability was there plainly on the file! But let's move on to the next
intriguing twist in the tale.
Despite enquiries, I have been unable to find out who this 'individual' is
who is going to to pay back Ayers' debt for him, by not making any expense
claims for a while. Neither have I been able to find out why she, or he,
feels they have to do such a thing. I can only speculate that she, or he,
considers themselves complicit in the whole affair, and that her, or his,
conscience has caught up with them. Why it has taken so long for her, or
him, to come to this conclusion I can't guess, nor do I know why the EC are
so coy about naming this 'generous' individual, as failing to do so opens
the flood gates of speculation once more.
A far better outcome would have been to have got Ayers himself to pay his
debts, and we still haven't been given a proper explanation as to why the EC
would not sue him.
I wonder if Mr. Farrar's words " This may satisfy the proper concerns of
some members, though they will surely insist that we should be much more
careful in future.", will be realised in action. If so, being 'careful'
would seem to imply that we should not allow any one person to control
CCBN's money (not forgetting that information is power). If there is , as I
suppose above, a person who feels they were complicit in the Ayers affair
(and by 'repaying' the money, as above, is admitting it) surely she, or he,
should not be involved in CCBN's finances again?
CCBN's current Treasurer is stepping down in October and no one has stood
for replacement so far. I wonder if the EC is concerned at the lack of
financial control this could lead to? It would be hard for them to defend a
situation in the future if the person who has not been named, turned out to
be the sole person with control over CCBN's money and the information about
it, wouldn't it?
--
Duncan Heenan