Please, please understand that I am in full support of all efforts here (in case I haven't already said that.)  I'm only asking the questions I'd ask if this letter appeared on my desk one morning.  In that case, I'd be some PA to Commissioner X, maybe new in my post.  "Open the mail," Commissioner X would say.  "Rants, stick in the bin.  Queries, read 'em see if you can and reply.  Anything interesting, put it in that envelope.  Answers to the questionnaire, put them in that filing cabinet."

How to get into that "anything interesting" envelope?

So, do we agree that it is impossible to write a non-loaded multiple choice question regarding the topic(s)?

Thing is, I can't see them changing the whole structure because we have found fault, but I can see them taking note of "the form of the questions" for next time round...  

I'm trying to think practically.  A hundred great suggestions end up in the bin because they don't tie to what's feasible on the ground.  I can see it where I work.  The guy from Data Quality bores us for hours about how much we need X, Y, and Z, and he's right of course.  He spends hours writing long messages, paper and e-mail, intranet, you name it, he sends his messages out and is ignored by everyone because they're not that interested and he never gives them simple things to do.  He needs to say:

STOP DOING 'A', DO B INSTEAD.  IT WILL WORK BETTER.  (HERE ARE SOME EASY TO REMEMBER NUMBERS IN CASE YOU FORGET.)

We're not paid enough to be like other lobby groups.  We have to be faster, smarter, more fun, more exacting, ET always gets to the point, knows what's what etc.  If the survey is a crock, then I think the letter could say so more clearly and be shorter.

Then again, I never was good at meetings or reading reports...

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.