Agenda item

Purpose: To receive the report of the Returning Officer into the effectiveness of the Parliamentary and Local Elections held on 7 May 2015.

The Commission considered a report (Agenda Item 11) concerning the Review of the May 2015 Elections. Nick Carter introduced the item to Members as the Returning Officer and stated that it would be another 20 years before a similar situation would occur again (Parliamentary, District and Parish/ Town Elections on the same day). However, he stressed that lessons could be learnt from the event to help develop preparedness and execution of Elections in the future.

Nick Carter proceeded to set the scene as detailed within the Introduction of the report. Members heard that the management and operational aspects of elections were dealt with by the Electoral Services Team who wwere part of the Strategic Support Unit. The team consisted of three core members who dealt with elections and electoral registration (Elections Manager, Electoral Services Officer and Elections Assistant). During busier periods the team was supported by other staff within Strategic Support and more widely across the Council and by non-Council employees.

It was agreed at an early stage to conduct the count over three days in the following Layout: 

·         The Parliamentary Count immediately following the close of poll – a statutory requirement.

·         The District Count on Friday 8 May commencing at 11.00am.

·         The Parish/Town Count on Saturday 9 May commencing at 10.00am.

It was envisaged that the verification process would be complete by 01.00am and the Parliamentary Count concluded by 3.30am at the latest.

Members heard that, in Nick Carter’s opinion, no significant issues had been identified in either the use of Polling Stations or the format of the Count. However, he highlighted that the lack of capacity of the Elections team had become evident at an early stage due to the volume of calls they had to manage on a daily basis. Whilst a project plan was put in place to oversee the overall Elections process, the programme was not robustly followed; the project plan lacked detail and the team reverted to previous methods of operation – relying on a smaller number of experienced staff.

Nick Carter proceeded to explain the events and issues associated with the Post Notice of Election (23^rd March – 6^th May). He advised that the Elections Team received a large number of District/Parish Council nominations just before the deadline - this placed significant pressures on the Election Team. In addition to this, the Council issued 23,131 postal vote packs for the Parliamentary Election and District Elections and a further 10,507 for Parish/Town elections. These packs contained a total of 47,809 votes. Nick Carter explained that it was not possible to include three ballot papers in a single pack due to printing constraints. Members were aware that some voters were confused by the multiple ballot papers they had received and that better communication could have helped.

The Elections Team ran a range of training courses for staff associated with the elections. Nick Carter suggested that the training could have been more robust so that support staff were better prepared to assist.

The challenges were compounded by the demands of ‘overseas voters’ requesting postal votes. The Elections Team received a significant number of phone calls regarding overseas voters which took a considerable amount of time to process.

Nick Carter explained that the team experienced a significant issue through the realisation that the Ballot Papers had been numbered incorrectly. The number of papers delivered was correct but there was an issue with the numbers which appeared on the Ballot Papers themselves aswell. Members heard that the issue was exacerbated by the fact that the papers were delivered two days later than expected. Attempts were made to rectify the issue but due to time constraints this was not possible. As a result, contact was made with the software company but, due to the bank holiday weekend, the associated paperwork had to be manually amended.

Members heard that the venue and facilities for the Count on 7^th May were ideal. The communication system in place was well received by every one and helped to keep people well informed. Nick Carter reminded the Commission that the verification process took far longer then anticipated but, as Returning Officer, he emphasised that his main focus was upon accuracy and not speed. He highlighted that, due to the late finish of the parliamentary count, some key staff did not leave the Racecourse until 6:45am and were then required to undertake the same role later that morning.

The District Count commenced after a repeat verification of the ballot boxes. Nick Carter reiterated that his emphasis was around accuracy not speed. Once all boxes had been re-verified the District Count could begin. The Commission heard that an issue had occurred in respect of the Thatcham North seat. Nick Carter stated that this was a counting error which went undetected until after the Declaration. It was not possible to say whether the arithmetical error led to the declaration of an incorrect result. Nick Carter advised that due to the problems identified with the ballot paper numbering it was not possible to use the Election Management Software system. Had this been operational then it should have highlighted the error to the Control Table before it was declared.

The Commission was directed to point (5.23) of the report which listed the factors which attributed to the difficulties on that day: staff exhaustion; training, skill set and the role of the Control Table/ supervisors and availability of Election Management Software.

Councillor Emma Webster thanked Nick Carter for the report and welcomed questions from the Commission.

Councillor Von-Celsing stated that she had observed a member of staff struggling to count the ballot papers which had been placed in front of her. She asked Officers to explain how staff were selected for the role and whether checks were conducted to ensure they were suitable for the role. Phil Runacres advised that, due to the number of Elections, it was necessary to employ significantly more staff then usual. For this reason the team were unable to train every member of support staff but supervisors were asked to highlight anyone who they felt were unable to fulfil their role. Nick Carter explained how the Council were usually reliant on its own members of staff to support Elections but on this occasion the process required more support staff. Each person was requested to complete an online training course before they could partake in the count but it did not consider the persons abilities to count. Councillor Alan Macro suggested that the problem could have been exacerbated by the long working hours.

In response to questions asked by the Commission, Phil Runacres explained that the Election Management Software could not be used to streamline the count process because there was an earlier issue with the incorrect numbering on ballot papers. He stated that there was very limited opportunity to rectify the issue because the error was identified over a bank holiday weekend - the software support staff were not available over the bank holiday weekend. Nick Carter suggested that the issue highlighted, in hindsight, the importance of the Election Management Software to provide checks and assurance.

Councillor Paul Bryant asked for clarification regarding the process for sending multiple postal votes to residents. Phil Runacres stated that an external supplier provided the postal service on behalf of the Council. The provider was unable to include multi ballot papers becauseof the complexities caused by different franchises, the large size of many of the Parish Council ballot papers and the fact that it was not known until the close of nominations which Parishes/Parish Wards would be contested.

Councillor Mike Johnston asked whether the count could start after the parliamentary boxes had been verified and whether the polling station’s material could have been stored at the facility the night before, to avoid running items around the district on the day of the Elections. Phil Runacres advised that some ballot papers may have been misplaced into other ballot boxes so for this reason it was not viable to start counting before all boxes had been opened and verified. Also, some Presiding Officers decided to visit their polling station the night before in order to check that all the necessary polling screens were readily available - admittedly not all Officers conducted the same checks but there was no requirement for them to do so. The polling screens were delivered by an external company and it was noted that there were a few issues with the number of screens delivered. Clare Ockwell advised that there were two vans on standby to deliver additional screens as and when they were requested by Presiding Officers.

Councillor Webster thanked Members for their questions and asked Tony Vickers to address the Commission as the Liberal Democratic Agent

Tony Vickers stated that he was appointed as agent one month before the deadline. He found Clare Ockwell and Phil Runacres both to be extremely helpful and he sympathised with the team due to the pressures they had faced. The pressures were exacerbated by the late submissions by candidates and volume of postal votes – which had been discussed previously.

However, he suggested that it was reasonable to assume that seats would be contested for Town and Parish Council seats. For this reason the team should have been better prepared for such an eventuality. Tony Vickers suggested that the issue could be resolved if the Council held yearly Elections. He stated that issues had been raised regarding the skill set of support staff so he suggested that regular elections would ensure staff were familiar with the process. Tony Vickers suggested that, by introducing annual Elections,  there would be fewer Polling stations required, fewer training sessions and the process could be financial beneficial as well.

Councillor Webster thanked Tony Vickers for his comments and welcomed the Commission to comment.

Councillor Ian Morrin highlighted an issue with the Polling station at Burghfield. He advised that there was restricted disabled access and for this reason some residents were unable to vote. Nick Carter acknowledged the issue around accessibility and advised that he would review the concerns which had been raised.

Councillor Laszlo Zverko highlighted that he had visited three Polling Stations and that each of them had inadequate signage to advise residents how many votes they could use for each ballot paper. He was concerned that residents did not use all their votes due to the lack of notice within the stations. Nick Carter was surprised to hear that notices were inadequate as they were in accordance with legislation and in a format agreed by the Electoral Commission. He stated that he visited a number of stations and marked them against a standard checklist – from this he did not report any issues regarding signage but he acknowledged the comments which had been made. Councillor Webster challenged Councillor Zverko’s concern by stating that each ballot paper indicated the number of votes they were entitled to and that confusion could be minimised if Councillors’ mentioned the process when speaking to residents in advance of the Elections. Members noted that residents were entitled to vote ‘up to’ their allowance – which did not mean they had to use all votes available.

Councillor Bryant suggested that candidates with their name listed at the top of the ballot paper were 10% more likely to receive votes then those listed elsewhere on the same paper. He also stated that a number of external signs were difficult to read/see due to the weather conditions. He suggested that better signage would ensure residents could locate their polling station with ease.

Councillor Johnston advised that the next set of Elections would fall near the bank holiday weekend again. He suggested that if this was likely to reoccur then the Elections team should ensure this was factored into their project plan. Nick Carter agreed with the suggestion.

Councillor Johnston suggested that staff could support/ observe other Local Authority Elections in order to gain experience, awareness or direct training. Nick Carter explained that a set of standardised training was required with a robust training package available for Count Supervisors.

Councillor Alan Macro supported the suggestions that staff could observe neighbouring Councils Election process. He wanted to highlight the issues associated with the Theale Polling Station set away from the main High Street. He advised that the signage was inadequate and due to the turnover of residents in the area it was important that the locations were clearly marked.

Councillor Dave Goff wanted to extend his appreciation to everyone who was involved in the Elections process. However, he also expressed his frustrations that the Thatcham North result could not be challenged once declared, other than by way of an electoral petition to the High Court.

Councillor Webster concluded by comparing the order of processing at neighbouring Counting venues; She advised that the verification process at the Racecourse was challenging but she extended her thanks to everyone involved in the process. Councillor Webster specifically thanked Phil Runacres, Clare Ockwell and Nick Carter for their commitment and support throughout.

Resolved that:

1)    The following recommendations were accepted by the Commission:

A.   That a more detailed and robust project plan is developed six months prior to the election count.

B.   That project management principles are used to oversee, review and refresh the project plan and its implementation, in particular regular meetings are put in place involving the returning officer, the elections team and senior managers in strategic support to review implementation of the plan.

C.   That greater attention is paid to the future resourcing of elections, in particular where their scale is likely to require a much wider engagement of staff beyond the immediate elections team.  Resourcing requirements and a detailed assessment of responsibilities should form part of the project plan development.

D.   A detailed “frequently asked question” sheet should be prepared so that the contact centre could manage any generic queries on behalf of the elections team.

E.   A communication plan should be developed to explain complex or unusual aspects of the voting process to the public beforehand.

F.    A review of the way in which elections agents are briefed should be undertaken with a view to minimising nomination forms being returned at the last minute.