Joint Committee guidelines

Steering Committee and Election Regulations

DSU Notes

1. The cross-campus ballot to the position of Education and Welfare Officer of the 18th February 2000.
2. That the conduct of the above resulted in an appeal to the full Steering Committee, and subsequently an Internal Appeals Tribunal.
3. The report of the findings of the Internal Appeals Tribunal, presented to Council on the 10th May 2000.
4. Article XIV(iii) of the Constitution

   Standing Order may provide for the functions of the Committee in respect of elections to be discharged between sessions of the Committee by the Senior Returning Officer acting alone...

DSU Believes

1. That certain errors of judgement were made by Steering Committee which affected the smooth running of the election. [If you're not familiar with this one, specifically the assumption that counters, when told to 'count a different box this time' would actually do so, and the assumption that candidates would be familiar enough with Election Regulations as to realise that results were provisional. Nowadays both are safer assumptions, the latter largely because of this election.]
2. That these errors could and should have been avoided.
3. However, DSU does not 'punish' officers for their mistakes. [Mentioning no Presidents by name? I'm not entirely sure what they meant here]
4. That Steering Committee acted to the best of their ability at the time, and without malicious intent.
5. That sometimes, bad things just happen. [Every other election. At least the sabb rerun shifted the IATs onto the less important Conference election.]
6. Members of Steering Committee are only human. [Official!]

DSU Further Believes

1. That it is imperative that procedures be put into place to avoid similar situations in the future.
2. That better training and specific guidelines for Steering Committee and Senior Returning Officer are needed.
3. That a 'Code of Good Practice for Elections' would help in achieving these aims.
4. That such a document should be regularly reviewed and updated, lest it become outdated and lose its relevance. [Oops.]

DSU Resolves

1. To adopt the attached document - 'A Code of Good Practice for Election' as a set of guidelines for the funning [This typo was in the original, honest] of all [People weren't as pedantic about this word in those days] future elections.
2. That a permanent subcommittee of Joint Committee, should be convened under Standing Order 10.1.3 to monitor and re-evaluate the recommendations contained in the Code of Good Practice, suggesting updates and improvements where necessary. This working part [Typo for party?], should report in the first instance to Joint Committee, and should consist of (at least) two members of Steering Committee (to include the Senior Returning Officer) and (at least) three member of Joint Committee of DSU and the Colleges
3. Parts 3-7 were Standing Order changes. Most of them are still around in some form.

[The big problem with 2 (and 4, which was the SO changes to implement it) was that it arguably conflicted with Standing Orders explicitly preventing Joint from telling the SRO how to do anything.

There were three amendments put to the meeting. Amendment one replaced Further Believes and Resolves 2,4 with a motion to create a Rules Revision Committee. It was originally based on John's Constitutional Reform Committee, with improvements and modifications suggested by Simon Virr (who gets a credit in the agenda).

The second amendment was four pages of small type long (ask me or the Freedom of Information Officer for a photocopy if you want to see it), and split an Elections Committee off Steering. It took most of an all-night session to write, and was (mostly) technically correct. For something that we planned to withdraw anyway if Rules Revision passed that was perhaps excessive. But it did a good job of demonstrating the scale of the problems and getting Rules Revision through. The third amendment was more-or-less an addition to the second.

The second amendment also contained something to tidy up the 'Finance and Finance and Services' typo, but it wasn't that important.]

A Code of Good Practice for Elections

Introduction

This document is intended to be adopted by Steering Committee as the standard guidelines for the running of elections. It will be regularly monitored and reviewed to maintain its relevance.

It is intended to be supplementary to, rather than a replacement for, the Standing Orders and Election Regulations which provide for these situations. [Well, yes...]

Confidentiality

Confidentiality is of the utmost importancce in dealing with the business of elections. The following should be treated in complete confidence.

• Any communication between election candidates or their observers, proposers and seconders and the Senior Returning Officer, Steering Committee or their assistants, unless it is not the expressed intention of those parties involved. [Huh? This either means that communications between the two 'sides' that one (both?) sides ask to be confidential should be, which is sensible but unnecessary, or it means that only communication expressely stated to be communication is confidential.]
• Nomination forms ["Can I have a nomination form? No, they're confidential." Presumably they meant 'completed nomination forms before close of nominations']
• Meetings of Steering Committee in connection with the election.
• Ballot papers, and the contents of any ballot box.
• The results of any count or recount, before they hae been officially and finally announced. [Incidentally, final doesn't necessarily mean final in this document, see below, which is a pity since it was this problem it was designed to cope with above all...]
• Anything that happens, or anything which is said in a count or recount, until all deadlines for appeal have passed.

The greatest care should be taken at all times by the Senior Returning Officer. Steering Committee and any assistants to ensure that this confidentiality is upheld. Anyone connected with the election should consider themselves bound by DSU policy on confidentiality, on pain of censure.

The Count

In the case of cross-campus elections, wherever possible, the vote count should be moved to a convenient time and location before noon the following day. [Possibly the best part of the whole document] Every effort should be made that the ballot papers are secure in the intervening time, within reasonable bounds. (e.g. A locked box or cupboard inside a locked room is acceptable, the SRO's car or back pocket is not.) [How large did they think our pockets were?]

Any keys should be held only by the Senior Returning Officer.

During the count, and any recounts, the Senior Returning Officer only should rule as to whether a certain paper is in or out of order. This judgement being based on Election Regulations 13.1.3-13.1.5 This judgement should not be influenced by any other individual in the room. [This somewhat defeats the point of observers, presumably they have to appeal to Steering if they think the SRO's ruling was wrong - incidentally, if they did so immediately, and enough of Steering was present, this would really fall apart. This is also the bit that can be interpreted as meaning the SRO has to rule on every ballot paper, even the clear ones, it's a nice idea but utterly impractical]. All communication dring the count, or recounts, should be directed through the SRO. If the ambiguity at all regarding a paper, or set of papers, then the final decision rests with the SRO. [And this second half of paragraph says the same as the first, but in a more reasonable manner.]

The only people present in any count or recounts should be the Senior Returning Officer, members of Steering Committee not disqualified from involvement inthe election, any assistants who have been officially appointed (under Standing Order 1.3.6) for the purpose of counting votes and one official observer per candidate (if appointed under Election Regulation 13.1.1). Observers should have no part in the proceedings, other than to observe that these guidelines, the election Regulations and the relevant Standing Orders are upheld. [Sometimes by trying to work through with the SRO what ERS97 means].

Observers may communicate only with the SRO. [Nice one to have around if you need it, but sometimes inconvenient]

Excepting reasonable comfort and refreshment breaks, no one should enter after the count has started, nor leave before it has finished. [I think for the 44 hour count we simply deemed the majority of the counters to have had a quite reasonable 36 hour comfort break at the start of the count].

If, following the first count, the difference in votes between any candidate is within 5% of quota, then a recount shall automatically and immediately be held. This shall continue until the Senior Returning Officer is satisfied that the result is a true and accurate one. [1% would be more appropriate, people aren't that inaccurate. For STV, it's hard to imagine one where it wasn't 5%. In fact, by definition, after two surplus transfers it will be zero, so automatic recount. The 'immediately' bit was before the 44 hour count, and the previous longest had been 8 hours, so they were not being deliberately unreasonable.]

Announcement of Results

Any preliminary ["Can we have a preliminary result?" - clueless election campaigner] or final results should be considered confidential until they are officially announced by declaration from (e.g.) the level A balcony in Dunelm House (in the case of cross-campus ballots). It should be made crystal clear that any results are only provisional, pending any appeal. It is recommended that a prepared statement such as the one below should be used verbally and in writing to that effect, to avoid any ambiguity.

These results are the provisional election results, and are liable to change subject to any appeal, in writing, to the Steering Committee within the time limits laid down in the Election Regulations.

Steering Committee Involvement in Elections:

Steering Committee must be seen to be as impartial as possible. Members of Steering are recommended to take no part in any election above their official duties. They should neither propose nor second any candidate, nor act as official observer for a candidate. If, however, a member of Steering Committee feels that they have a personal interest in any election, such that might impair their impartiality, or wishes to stand as a candidate in an election, then they should have no part whatsoever in administering the election.

More archives