This report will be made
public on 23 August 2013
Report Number
To:
Date:
Status:
Head of service:
GP/13/03
General Purposes Committee
3 September 2013
Non executive decision
Peter Wignall, Administration
SUBJECT: KENT COUNTY COUNCIL ELECTIONS 2103
SUMMARY: The Electoral Commission has recently reported on the running of
Local Elections on 2 May 2013.
This report gives an overview of the conduct of the Kent County Council election
in Shepway.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS:
To inform the Committee about the conduct of the recent elections to the County
Council, the observations received and the performance standards of the
returning officer.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. To receive and note report GP/13/03.
1.
BACKGROUND
1.1
This report sets out an account of the conduct of the recent elections to the
county council, the observations received and the performance standards
of the returning officer.
1.2
As members will be aware Kent County Council (KCC) elections are all out
elections held every 4 years, the most recent being held on Thursday 2
May 2013.
1.3
The County Returning Officer is responsible for the overall conduct of the
election and appoints a number of Deputy Returning Officers at Local
Authority level to enable elections to be arranged locally. The County
Returning Officer can also issue directions concerning the conduct of the
election and count. The directions issued are mentioned below.
1.4
The KCC elections cover 12 local authorities divided into 72 electoral
divisions to elect 84 County Councillors. The electorate of Kent County
Council is approximately 1.1 million.
1.5
Shepway is divided into 6 single member county divisions as follows:
Elham Valley
Folkestone North East
Folkestone South
Folkestone West
Hythe
Romney Marsh
1.6
The largest county division in Shepway is Romney Marsh with 17,860
electors compared to Hythe, the smallest county division, with 11,943
electors.
1.7
Shepway had an eligible electorate of 82,509 consisting of 17,002 postal
voters, 144 proxy voters and 4 anonymous electors.
1.8
Polling day was Thursday 2 May 2013 from 07:00am to 10:00pm across 70
Polling Districts consisting of 63 Polling Stations.
1.9
The count was held on Friday 3 May 2013, starting at 09:00am as directed
by the County Returning Officer.
1.10
Overall 253 members of staff, internal and external, were used to run the
KCC election in Shepway including 60 Presiding Officers, 106 Poll Clerks
and over 80 Count Staff.
2.
PRE-ELECTION
2.1
Election planning began in December 2012 with the mailing of booking
forms to all Polling Stations, the revision of election plans, the monitoring of
Electoral Commission performance standards and supply of cost estimates.
2.2
The cost analysis for Shepway totalled approximately £155,000. The cost
of running an election is mainly calculated from the Kent Scale of Expenses
as approved by the County Council Electoral and Boundary Review
Committee on 27 February 2013.
2.3
All costs incurred by Shepway during the election are recoverable from the
County Council.
2.4
On 7 December 2013 the County Returning Officer wrote to all Deputy
Returning Officers directing them to start the count at 09:00 on Friday 3
May 2013. The decision was based on the freshness of key staff and the
need for accuracy.
2.5
In January 2013 the Elections Team began the task of contacting all 655
registered election staff to ascertain availability and assess further
recruitment needs. An excellent response was received and no additional
recruitment required.
2.6
The Electoral Commission performance standards allow training of election
staff to be delivered in person or online. These options were also offered by
the County Returning Officer in his directions.
2.7
The County Returning Officer also directed that only election staff not
appointed at the earlier Police Crime Commissioner Elections (PCC) and
all Presiding Officers required training. This provided an opportunity for
Shepway to trial online training.
2.8
Online election training had been developed for first use at the PCC
elections. Shepway declined to use the system as it was “clunky”,
Americanised and user unfriendly in its navigation.
2.9
The online training was revised following feedback from users at the PCC
elections into a user friendly system, void of Americanisms with additional
options to assist navigation.
2.10
The online election training system was rolled out successfully and
completed by all appropriate election staff before polling day.
2.11
The decision to reduce election signs and improve Presiding Officer
information was taken in response to feedback from previous elections.
2.12
The amount of election signage was limited to the statutory signs
prescribed in legislation. This removed a minimum of 4 signs from the
Presiding Officers pack. This did not affect the visibility of the polling
stations from public areas and no complaints were received that polling
stations were not easily identifiable.
2.13
Presiding Officer information was reviewed and streamlined to simplify
tasks. Mistakes by Presiding Officers slow down ballot box receipting
processes at close of poll. Improving this information would speed up
processes after close of poll, allowing key staff to depart earlier.
3.
POSTAL VOTE OPENING
3.1
A new postal vote pack was used during the KCC elections. The postal
pack contained a windowed ‘envelope A’ which displaying the ballot paper
number without having to open the envelope. This eliminated a stage in the
opening process.
3.2
Leaving ‘envelope A’ unopened during the opening process also increased
the integrity of postal vote opening sessions as rejected votes could be
removed untouched.
3.3
Postal vote opening sessions were also conducted differently than in
previous years. A core postal vote opening team of 6 staff were appointed
to open postal votes on a daily basis.
3.4
In previous years, postal votes were stored up and opened en mass over a
weekend with a team in excess of 40 staff.
3.5
It was found that a small team of experienced staff opening votes daily
improved the accuracy and management of the process. It also eliminated
weekend working for the core Elections Team during their busiest period.
3.6
An unexpected efficiency of the daily postal vote opening sessions was a
saving of approximately £2,000 when compared to the PCC postal vote
opening costs.
4.
POLLING DAY
4.1
It was an unusual start to polling day, this year Presiding Officers were
instructed not to report in unless they had a problem. This also enabled the
core election staff to start later.
4.2
The Electoral Services Manager was able to monitor the election from
home until the office was manned as normal. The reduced phone calls
meant the core elections team did not have to man the office from
06:30am, allowing them to be fresher for the evening.
4.3
Polling day in general was very quiet. No major incidents occurred and no
complaints were received from electors, staff, candidates or agents. One
measure of success of a polling day is by the lack of concerns or problems
raised.
5.
THE COUNT
5.1
The count was held at 09:00 on Friday 3 May 2013 in the Grand Hall at the
Leas Cliff Hall, The Leas, Folkestone.
5.2
The count had been synchronised across the County to start at 09:00am
on 3 May 2013, as directed by the County Returning Officer.
5.3
All 6 Shepway county divisions were counted at the same time, with
approximately 12 to 14 counters per division.
5.4
There were no issues at the count. All divisions were accurately counted
and the results accepted by the candidates and agents.
5.5
The closest results were in the Folkestone South and Romney Marsh
divisions, with winning margins of 17 and 20 votes respectively.
5.6
Unfortunately there was a failure at the count with the County election
results software. The software should have displayed live results from
across the County on a large screen. The software was not repaired until
all but one division had been declared at Shepway. An investigation is
being carried out by KCC.
6.
FEEDBACK
6.1
The recruitment of election staff was conducted earlier than in previous
years to reduce workload around the election timetable. This proved to be
very successful and election staff welcomed the early appointment and
notice.
6.2
It was noted that Shepway has not allocated the polling district as a polling
place, reducing flexibility should a polling station become unavailable. This
option will be proposed during the Polling District Review due to start on 1
October 2013.
6.3
A number of Presiding Officers commented on the excellent organisation of
ballot boxes. An additional effort had been made to organise ballot boxes
with document indexes and clear labels.
6.4
Good feedback was received from Presiding Officers regarding the
reduction of election signage. As stated above no reports of the reduced
signage hindering the electorate were received.
6.5
The online training system did release the elections team to undertake
other duties and feedback showed election staff found the on line training
an improvement over the previous practice.
6.6
A number of Councillors and Candidates commented on the clear
instructions in the postal vote packs. These comments were welcomed with
the new postal vote packs being used during the election.
6.7
The reduction of phone calls Presiding Officers were instructed to make
received the most positive comments. Presiding Officers were happy to be
able to concentrate on the electorate and their polling station rather than
make multiple calls throughout the day.
6.8
The general feedback received during the election was positive and all the
comments received will be built into the election plan for the European
elections in 2014.
6.9
Shepway submitted its final accounts to KCC on 18 July 2013 with a saving
of £19,000 compared to the original estimate. The total cost of the election
came to £136,000.
7.
ELECTORAL COMMISSION PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
7.1
The success of the County election was also reflected in the Electoral
Commissions (EC) performance standard assessment.
7.2
On 20 December 2012 the Electoral Commission issued a direction to
report under Section 9B(1) of the Political Parties, Elections and
Referendums Act 2000 (‘PPERA’).
7.3
The Returning Officer must submit evidence of compliance with the nine
performance standards at set intervals as prescribed by the EC. The
evidence submitted is assessed by the EC as ‘below the standard’ or
‘meeting the standard’.
7.4
The Electoral Commission informed Shepway on 10 June 2013 that the
Returning Officer had met all nine standards.
7.5
The performance standards and assessment score are in the table below:
Performance standard
Planning and
1a: Planning for an
organisation
election
Administering the 2a: Polling station set-up
poll
2b: Producing ballot
papers, poll cards and
notices
Absent voting
3a: Producing postal vote
stationery
Verifying and
counting the
votes
After the
declaration of
results
Assessment
Meeting the standard
Meeting the standard
Meeting the standard
Meeting the standard
3b: Issuing of postal votes
Meeting the standard
3c: Receiving and opening
postal votes
Meeting the standard
4a: Effective verification
and count processes
Meeting the standard
5a: Forwarding and
storage of documents
Meeting the standard
5b: Review of election
procedures
Meeting the standard
3.
RISK MANAGEMENT ISSUES
3.1
There were no risks.
4.
LEGAL/FINANCIAL AND OTHER CONTROLS/POLICY MATTERS
4.1
Legal Officer’s Comments (PJW)
No legal issues arise from this report.
4.2
Finance Officer’s Comments (GW)
There are no financial implications arising from the report. This comment is
based on information contained within the report.
4.3
Diversities and Equalities Implications (WF)
There are no equalities or diversity implications within this report.
5.
CONTACT OFFICERS AND BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
Councillors with any questions arising out of this report should contact the
following officer prior to the meeting
Wayne Fitter, Electoral Services Manager
Telephone: 01303 853234.
Email: [email protected]
The following background documents have been relied upon in the
preparation of this report:
None