Consultations

Responses to consultation on changes to ARB’s Electoral Scheme

Three responses received, as follows:

General Dental Council

Thank you for sending us your consultation document on amendments to your electoral scheme. In view of our role as the regulatory body for dentists and dental care professionals, we have no comments to make on the proposals.

Keith Miller
Principal, Low Energy Architecture

Title of scheme: Agreed
Interpretation 1 : Agreed
Interpretation 2 : Agreed, but with some reservations.  I did not expect EU architects to have voting rights in this country, just as I would not expect to have voting rights if I registered in other EU states.
Interpretation 3 : Agreed
Interpretation 4 : Agreed
2.2 : Agreed
4.2 : Agreed
5.5 : Agreed
5.7 : Agreed
7 : Agreed
7.5 : Agreed
7.6 : Agreed
7.7 : Agreed
8.2 : Agreed
Appendix 1.1 : Agreed
Appendix 3 : Agreed
Appendix 4 : Agreed
Appendix 5.2 : Agreed

Francesca Berriman
CIAT

Title of scheme : need ' after s of Architects ;

Interpretation 1 : I think out the outset of this document stages could be detailed for clarity. Is it the intention to send the candidate information by post - is this likely to change in the future to be emailed out ..... does this need to be considered.;

Interpretation 2 : ;

Interpretation 3 : ;

Interpretation 4 : ;

2.2 : ;

4.2 : I think 4.2d) need reviewing also.;

5.5 : ;

5.7 : ;

7 : Who determines  the "random" order. Or how is it determined?;

7.5 : Surely each Architect on the roll will have their unique security number and this can be tracked and so if lost a replacement with the same security code be issued.  Also it can not be duplicated - this should be quite straightforward.;

7.6 : ;

7.7 : ;

8.2 : ;

Appendix 1.1 : ;

Appendix 3 : ;

Appendix 4 : ;

Appendix 5.2 : ;