What standards should Counting Officers have to meet?

The Electoral Commission is currently consulting on its draft performance standards for Counting Officers in Great Britain, which will supplement the existing standards for Electoral Registration Officers and Returning Officers. Counting Officers are the people who administer a referendum in a particular area, much like in the London Assembly and Mayor elections the borough returning officers administer the election in their area on behalf of the London Returning Officer.

Here is the response I’ve sent in:

Dear Lindsey Taber,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft performance standards for Counting Officers.

My comments are as follows:

Performance standard 1: Skills and knowledge of the Counting Officer
In order to meet the performance standard, Counting Officers have to follow instructions issued to them by the Chief Counting Officer and to be aware of the rules more generally. However, there is no requirement on a Counting Officer to follow those rules in order to meet the acceptable standard. That seems a strange omission, as surely acceptable performance is not just knowing the rules but also following them?

In addition, under evidence to support the assessment about whether or not the performance standard has been met, no reference is made to keeping records of whether any complaints (formal or informal) were made about the Counting Officer’s performance and, if so, what the outcome of those complaints were. On this basis, a Counting Officer could seriously under-perform, triggering numerous well grounded complaints from people, but this evidence would not be considered relevant as to whether or not the Counting Officer had met the standard.

Performance standard 2: Planning processes in place for a referendum
This standard places a heavy emphasis on having the correct paperwork lined up, but says little about its content. So, for example, to meet the standard a Counting Officer has to have “clearly defined objectives and success measures”. However, there is no requirement for them to be sensible objectives and measures.

This is particularly pertinent given the number of Returning Officers who, operating under similar performance standards, had plans for the May 2010 general election which were not able to cope with a historically modest increase in turnout levels. An equivalent error by a Counting Officer could result in plans that meet the performance standard despite not being able to deliver a well run referendum.

Performance standard 7: Communication of information to campaigners
One of the most frequent complaints from campaigners about Returning Officers is that they are slow to provide information which they are legally obliged to supply.

It would be better if, in order to meet this performance standard, Counting Officers are not only required to brief local campaigners (as stated) but in addition are required to respond promptly to any legitimate requests for information.

I do not have any comments on the other standards.

Best wishes,

Mark Pack
Former member, Electoral Commission’s Political Parties Panel

Read more by or more about .
This entry was posted in Election law.
Advert

2 Comments

  • “The problems were the problems, and it could be argued that the turn-out was unexpected (although one polling station running out of ballot papers was absurd).”

    (a) turnout was not particularly higher and (remember c.10% of votes would have been by post.
    (b) it wasn’t unexpected

    AIUI (ie I’ve read in numerous places but not actually looked up the rule) if your vote isn’t case by 10pm then that is that. Whether it is a sensible law is a different matter.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert

Recent Comments

  • Daniel Walker
    @theakes "first past the post was a winner for us in 2024. Suggest we keep our heads down and live with it." If your opinion on an electoral system—...
  • Paul Holmes
    Rob, you also say that we can't be the party of the NHS or the Environment because Labour and the Greens have those. Surely it is a mistake to abandon whole are...
  • Paul Holmes
    Rob, you offer two possible groups of key target supporters for the Liberal Democrats. However, both are, as you note, just subsets of the affluent middle class...
  • Peter Wrigley
    @Jana: I regrade myself as an extremest for liberalism: the maximum amount of individual freedom that doesn't infringe the freedom others. I’m also pretty ke...
  • Roland
    >”He’d voted in every general election since 1974, he said, and this was the first time he had ever voted for a winning candidate.” Well I could say t...