Breandan, what are you telling us now that you haven't already said before?   

- "The only pressure available to the centralised elected committee is to exclude the local committee from the organisation". In other words, head office is allowed to kick the branch committee out and there's nothing they can do about it.   Yes, we know that already.

- "There are no other options" speaks for itself. But there should be. Having no checks and balances in an organisation allows for misuse of power.

- "There is no way to get a local committee to do the right thing". So head office gets to decide what the right thing is and apply force/expulsion if they don't get it.

- "I think the committee spent a little too much time arguing over the precise shade of blue for the letterhead and a little less time than necessary trying to get the required funding in place."

Which committee is this referring to? Do you mean the head office one? Not spending enough time trying to get the required funding in place sounds serious enough to warrant more attention than half a sentence. If they didn't do this they are at least partly culpable.

Basically this is just a re-tread of everything we've already heard. So what's new?