Board of Deputies leaders appear to have suffered a second rebuff in a month after failing to gain enough votes to secure constitutional reforms. 

However, the result is yet to be confirmed as the JC understands a number of people were unable to cast their vote electronically at the digital meeting of deputies on Sunday. 

According to sources, the reform package was supported by 63 per cent to 37 per cent – narrowly short of the two-thirds majority necessary to approve constitutional change. 

Last month, the vote was 61 per cent in favour and 39 against. 

But Sunday’s vote was called into question when it was thought that 12 deputies had been unable to record their votes.

One source said that subsequent inquiries had established that ten of those had wanted to abstain, leaving just two intended votes not taken into account. If that proves to be the case, it would not affect the outcome. 

The Board said its officers would not comment pending further discussions. 

The main thrust of the reforms would be to increase the trustee body from the five current officers to 11 and, say lawyers advising the Board, protect deputies from unlimited liability. 

But some of the finer details have attracted opposition, including whether some of the additional trustees should have specific portfolios. 

After tweaking the plans again in the wake of last month’s setback, Board president Marie van der Zyl wrote to deputies ahead of Sunday in the hope that those “unable to support the constitutional documents last time will be able to do so this time”. 

Sunday’s 90-minute debate on the reforms was not livestreamed, as Board plenaries normally are, and no amendments were allowed. 

A group of deputies, known as the “gang of four”, who have been at the forefront of resistance to some of the changes, urged deputies in advance to vote against the package. 

 “We strongly believe that the Board will be best served by a consensus approach to the new governing documents in which the honorary officers carry all the deputies with them, instead of repeated attempts to push through their proposals without allowing amendments to be considered in a plenary,” they argued.