From Stuart Le Ruez-Lane.
AS a member of Family Nursing and Home Care, I write in response to your article (JEP, 17 February) regarding the vote of censure lodged by Jo Bowers against the chairman, Richard Pirouet, concerning the suspension of Karen Huchet.

I have met Ms Huchet socially at a number of Family Nursing fund-raising events and have always found her to be charming and most supporting of Family Nursing. I therefore have no axe to grind against Ms Huchet. I have never met, nor had any business dealings with, Mr Pirouet, so again have no axe to grind on that account.

Ms Bowers raises a valid point in regard to the cost of canvassing the 7,000-odd members of Family Nursing, but fails to realise that the cost arises as a direct result of the motion she is putting to the membership. All members must be given the option of voting on a motion of censure and all therefore need to have presented to them the competing arguments upon which to make a decision. Which leads me to the most pressing concern with the current proposals.

The present arguments seem to be based on untested claims, counterclaims and innuendos and not upon determined fact. It is my belief that an extraordinary general meeting is not the proper forum in which to test the veracity of the several competing claims.

These should be tested in properly appointed tribunals. Only once that process has been concluded, slow though it may be, and the facts of the matter are uncovered, can it be determined if there is any evidence of improper conduct by the chairman or committee that should be put to the membership.

I would therefore urge Ms Bowers to withdraw her current motion and await the conclusion of proceedings before seeking a review by the membership of the conduct of the chairman and committee.
Forest Hill Cottage,
Beaumont,
St Peter.