I'm not terribly moved by it one way of another. The city of london (the square mile) is the boundaries of Londinium, dating back to like, at least 50AD as I understand it. The office of the city rememberancer was (originally at least) essentially that of a messenger. There is, it seems, no record of the city of london corporation having been incorporated, but it's first royal charter is from like, 1067, and may date as far back as 1003. It's function is (ostensibly) that of a city council. :Shrugs: Voting eligibility is 18+, a Sole trader, a Partner, or a resident. In theory, at least, I don't see anything wrong with any of that, at least not in principle. I can, however, see how it might be open to abuse, or being hijacked by an 'old boys club'. But there's the potential for that to happen in any circumstances anyway. I know that the 2002 reforms increased the scope of voting eligibility, to include: Those who have worked for the body for the past year at premises in the City Those who have served on the body's Board of Directors for the past year at premises in the City Those who have worked in the City for the body for an aggregate total of five years Those who have worked for in the City for a total of ten years I also know that Paul Double, the current city rememberancer is working with Parliment on reforms (I lack information about what kinds). As for my personal opinion. On the one hand, I can see how it might be corrupt (I view allegations as precisely that, an allegation remains an allegation until it's tested in a court of law, innocent until proven guilty and all that). I can understand how it might have originated, and how its origin might have been valid - after all, the boardmembers of goldman-sax have democratic rights to. I can see how what might be perceived as an imbalance of power might naturally arise if votes are awarded to business owners porportionally to the number of their employees, on the assumption they will represent the best interests of said employees. My understanding is that some of the legal loopholes that people are now complaining about came about because the businesses involved (either now, or at the time) gave the city loans for things such as public works - in that regard, there's an element of karma and irony in amongst all of this. Is it right or wrong that it's come to this point? I'll refrain from comment on that for now.