Open letter to the Members' Oversight Committee: transparency, independence, and answers

The party's own ratified strategy promised elections "run by a trusted independent, third-party company" and proposed a Members' Oversight Committee of five ordinary members selected by sortition. The MOC was the guardrail meant to make that manageable. Instead, the committee met once, without minutes, and its five members remain unnamed. The party has now published a page for the MOC — but without names, records, or any account of what happened after the lottery. This letter asks for the minimum.

We call on the Members' Oversight Committee to publish its members' names, clarify how it was formed and who runs its communications, and commit to a public report before it dissolves. The full letter below will be sent to the MOC (moc@yourparty.uk) and published with the names of everyone who adds their support.

---

Dear Members' Oversight Committee,

We are members of Your Party and are writing to the MOC directly following the publication of your page on the Your Party website and in light of some ongoing reporting on the oversight and transparency of the CEC election process.

We welcome the fact that the MOC now has a public-facing page and a contact address. That is a step in the right direction. However, several of the commitments made in the party's founding documents remain unmet. We would be grateful for your response to the following.

In summary, we ask:

1 - Names: Publish the names of the five MOC members. Anonymous oversight cannot be held to account.
2 - Independence: Clarify who administers moc@yourparty.uk and whether MOC communications are visible to party staff or the Independent Alliance.
3 - Formation: Explain what happened after the sortition—who was contacted, by whom, whether anyone was dropped for political affiliation, and how substitutes were chosen.
4 - Minutes: Publish minutes or short summaries of MOC meetings and any recommendations made to the leadership or Returning Officer.
5 - Report: Commit to a public report before the MOC dissolves (e.g. on the oversight process and whether the election was conducted with adequate safeguards).

The questions raised here are the minimum that any member of a democratic party is entitled to ask of a body established in their name.

We would appreciate a reply by return, or a date by which the MOC expects to respond. Preferably before the beginning of the CEC election voting stage.

The appendix below sets out each of these points in detail.

Kind regards,

Your Party members undersigned

--------------------------------------------
APPENDIX:

1) Why anonymity undermines oversight

The MOC page states that "Your Party is not compelling these members to disclose their identities, but they are welcome to do so if they wish."

With respect, this framing misunderstands what democratic oversight requires. Oversight is a public function, and its legitimacy depends on visibility. If members don't know who sits on the oversight committee, they cannot:

- Assess whether MOC members have conflicts of interest with candidates or staff.
- Raise concerns directly with the named individuals.
- Hold the committee accountable for its decisions or inaction.
- Verify that the committee is independent of the people it is supposed to oversee.

Anonymous oversight is a contradiction in terms. The MOC was presented to the membership as a democratic safeguard. Safeguards that operate in secret are assertions of trust.

Even if individual MOC members prefer privacy, the committee as a body has a duty of transparency that overrides personal preference. At a minimum, members are entitled to know who is acting on their behalf.

We would ask the MOC to publish the names of its five members.

2) Independence and monitoring

The MOC's credibility depends entirely on its independence from the interim leadership and from party staff. I would like to understand:

- Who administers the moc@yourparty.uk email address? Is it managed by MOC members directly, or does a staff member have access to incoming messages?
- Are MOC communications (emails, meeting notes, internal discussions) visible to any party staff, officers, or members of the Independent Alliance of MPs?
- Did any party staff member or volunteers attend, observe, or take part in the MOC's January meeting? If so, in what capacity?
- Does the MOC have the power to request documents, data, or explanations from staff and officers, and to publish its findings without prior approval?
- Has the MOC received legal advice or guidance on its role, and if so, from who?

If the moc@yourparty.uk inbox is administered by party staff, then member queries to the MOC are not confidential from the people the MOC is supposed to oversee. This would be a fundamental design flaw, and members deserve to know.

3) Formation: what happened after the sortition?

The MOC page says members were "selected randomly by sortition (lottery), a process conducted by the independent Sortition Foundation." It then says "sortitioned members were then contacted and given an outline of what the oversight role would entail."

This is precisely where questions arise. The reporting of Inacio Vieira, Weekly Worker and The Canary has documented the case of a member who was contacted and told she had been sortitioned onto the MOC, and then never heard from again after disclosing her affiliation with Workers Power.

The Sortition Foundation has publicly stated that its "only involvement has been providing technical democratic lottery services" and that all questions about implementation should be directed to Your Party.

Could the MOC please confirm:

- How many members were initially drawn by the Sortition Foundation?
- How many were contacted, and by whom specifically?
- How many declined, were unreachable, or were not progressed?
- Were any members not progressed after disclosing political affiliations or group memberships? If so, under what rule or process?
- How were substitutes selected, and was the Sortition Foundation involved in any replacement draws?
- Was any other staff involved in contacting sortitioned members? If so, in what capacity and under whose authority?

A short procedural account answering these questions would materially improve trust in the process.

4) Records, minutes, and communication to members

The MOC page confirms a meeting took place "at the end of January." Beyond that, there is no public record of what the MOC discussed, decided, or recommended.

- Were minutes taken at the January meeting? If so, will they be published?
- If not minutes, will the MOC publish short written summaries of decisions, issues raised, and actions requested of officers?
- Has the MOC communicated any findings or recommendations to the Independent Alliance or to the Returning Officer? If so, were these recorded?
- Does the MOC intend to issue any public report before the elected CEC takes office?

A brief factual bulletin, even without identifying sensitive details, would be a meaningful step towards the transparency the committee was created to provide.

5) What will the MOC deliver?

The MOC's mandate expires when the elected CEC takes office. Could you outline what the MOC considers its minimum deliverables before dissolution? For example:

- A public report on the oversight process.
- Recommendations for future election cycles.
- A handover note to the incoming CEC.
- A statement on whether, in the MOC's view, the election was conducted with adequate safeguards and transparency.

---

Sources:

https://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1571/our-politics-needs-light
https://inacioinvita.substack.com/p/karie-murphy-contacted-sortitioned
https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2026/02/06/your-party-election-committee/