Elections Review Report 2014

Background

The Student Union Sabbatical Officer Elections are held every year during March. In 2011 a platform was built to encompass online voting into the voting system. We have historically received a data set from the University of current students. The Union assumed this only included full members of the Union. It was also assumed that students of ICP and Erasmus were not included within this data set and therefore couldn’t vote on our online system. After the 2014 Elections it became apparent that students from ICP and other students who were not entitled to vote had voted. In April 2014 the Presidential Election votes had to be recast as there were 30 paper votes which were anonymised and could have swung the Presidential Election.

Detail

The Elections Review Working Group was set up to review and make recommendations to ensure that the issues leading to the presidential re-election are not repeated and adequate measures are taken to ensure that the Union and its members are protected.

The Review group met on a weekly basis from 13th June 2014 until 12th September. The group was comprised of the CEO, Head of Student Opportunities, Student Voice Coordinator, Student Voice Administrator, President, VP Education and Democracy and VP Activities.

The entirety of the 2014 elections were reviewed day by day, including feedback from students and the University Secretary and Clerk to the Board of Governors, Mrs Sally Hartley.The key area’s for consideration were:

  1. Data set
  2. Communication
  3. Clarity around who our members are
  4. Who makes decisions?
  5. Clarification of boundaries of sabbatical officers
  6. Bye Laws

A focus group with engaged students was held on 28th September 2014 asking questions and opinions on the above highlighted issues.

The issues:

i. Data Set

In 2011/2012, Tom Worman, Head of Business and Marketing worked with the University of Portsmouth Information’s Services to provide a login solution to the Union's election platform (then hosted by BAM, now hosted by the Union).

This script used students' computer login (as they would use in the library) permitting them to login and vote in Union elections. It was the Union's understanding that only University of Portsmouth students (full members of the Union) had computer accounts for the University's systems and therefore was the most secure way of allowing all students to vote. UoP staff computer accounts for example were blocked from the same script and only student accounts allowed access. The only changes to the system before March 2014 was to formally request to add the Union's Sabbatical Officers to the system for each election, so their 'staff' computer accounts we permitted to vote

It was believed, up until March 2014 by both the Union and University that the data set excluded ICP students and that they could not vote on the current system. After the Elections in March 2014, it became clear that ICP students had been able to vote in the Election. The Union Governing documents and Bye Laws were not robust enough on the matter to determine a clear definition regarding voting privileges of some students groups, therefore, based on the informed interpretation of the Union Elections team,it was established that ICP students were not entitled to vote.

ii. Communication

It was highlighted through various student feedback, sabbatical officers and Senior Managers attendance at Student Council that the student population felt that they were not communicated with regarding key issues during the election. It was also felt that there was insufficient communication in reference to complaints made at the time of the elections.

iiiClarity of Union Membership & voting rights

Throughout the process in became apparent that the definition in the Byelaw relating to Membership was unclear on member definitions and their rights under the various memberships we offer. There are various types of member (full, associate, affiliate) some can vote, but not run for office, some cannot vote or run for office. The definitions were found to be interpretable both within our Bye Laws and indeed in some of the University contracts with individual organisations, such as ICP.

iv. Who makes decisions

Students had communicated to us that they were unclear and required clarity around who makes decisionswithin an election– the RO, DRO, Elections working Group, sabbatical officers etc – There was also some confusion about where they can go to make complaints against decisions and where the final decision lies.

v. Boundaries of SabbaticalOfficers during an election

Sabbatical Officers(as Officers or re-running candidates), candidates and the student body were unclear about the rules regarding Sabbatical Officers ability to support candidates, get involved with elections decisions and the process itself.

As the current accepted position had been that Sabbatical Officers can support a candidate as long as they follow a declaration process - it was also felt by some of the elections review board that this may be perceived as bias and that the student body will seethis as the Union supporting certain candidates.

vi.Bye Law 5

The Elections review found that the Bye Law governing the elections is out-dated, vague and unhelpful in guiding and providing clarification for the Deputy Returning Officer in running the elections.

Student Consultation and communication during the review:

An engaged students focus group was held on 28th September with 5 students in second and third years at University.

An open discussion took place on communication, sabbatical boundaries, election rules including campaigning and budgets, Bye Laws and ideas for change.

Aside from the issues highlighted above students felt that we needed:

  • Clarity around who complaints are made to
  • Definitions of sanctions for breaking the rules need to be clear and published
  • Sabbatical Officers should be allowed to support other candidates through the process by sharing their experience and good practice, but not allowed to campaign for them
  • Rules seem ‘childish’ and one dimensional, there should be more detailed guidelines that provide more clarity on what is and isn’t acceptable in a democratic process
  • Union Media society students should be able to support candidates when they are not “on duty” as media
  • More promotion of what a Sabbatical Officer is and isn’t
  • Leeway for mistakes if the rules were unclear

Student Recommendations to the Elections process:

  • Union needs to act earlier to inform students about elections
  • Keep polling stations but make elections all online due to previous issues with paper votes
  • Question time should not be compulsory.
  • General feeling that the University could support the elections more –some students suggested that they should have a slide at the beginning of each lecture telling students about the process
  • Slides on TV screens throughout the year- telling people about sabbatical officers and how to apply.

Summaries

Data Set:

Once membership was defined and voting rights established, it was necessary to ensure that we can clean the data (with the University systems support) ready for the Student Officer Elections. The Student Officer online election in October 2014 was a successful test run for a clean data set based on the new criteria. This will be used in all subsequent elections. We are grateful to the IS department for their on-going support.

Communications

The Union will provide timely and adequate communications concerning Elections and procedures, based on student feedback. On-going annual reviews of Election rules/guideline’s will be happening with the Sabbatical Officers, the Elections team and student & candidate assistance. Students will have complete clarity on what can and not be communicated during an election and a full report, including a summary of complaint trends will be published after elections have closed.

Clarity about Union Membership:

The Chief Executive met with the University Secretary & Clerk to the Governors, Sally Hartley in early August 2014. The key issues that were due to be addressed by the review group were explained and discussed.

Concerns were expressed over the need to clarify who is eligible to vote. It was the recommendation of Sally Hartley that the Union look into defining members as ‘those who are on a course which leads to a University of Portsmouth award’. There was then discussion about whether the Union would decide to include exceptions to that rule for example: the engaged students of ICP and Erasmus students.

It was agreed that UPSU needed to think about the following:

“IfUPSUwants these groups to be included inUPSUmembership it is welcome to do so. There are, though, somepractical issues associated with that:

-To make sure that the students know at the point of registration they are 'in' the membership ofUPSUand have the right to opt out;

-To clarify whetherBUCSwould view their status differently and limit any representation at sporting events;

-To clarify if their membership is necessarily limited,eg, whether or not they can stand for sabbatical office (also course reps, faculty reps and so on).”

Based on Sally Hartley’s advice the Elections working group formed a proposal to take to student consultation. This asked students for their thoughts on the definition of members being those who received a UOP award and their thoughts on ICP and Erasmus students being able to vote. There was a strong indication that ICP students and Erasmus students should be able to vote, but not stand in the elections.

Based on the consultation with students the following definitions regarding membership was decided:

-Students on a course that leads to a UoP award are full members with all rights

-ICP students have all rights excluding the right to stand for student officer, sabbatical officer or student trustee positions(ICP students are entitled to vote at all UPSU elections as they use University services, UPSU is included in their quality assurance. ICP students are not entitled to stand for office as elected Officers do not have direct influence over ICP and as they have their own distinct representation system within ICP)

-Erasmus students, whilst studying at UoP have all rights excluding the right to stand etc as above

The Bye Law that defines student membership (Bye Law 1) was updated, amended and approved at Annual Members Meeting on 4th December 2014.

Who makes decisions?

The rules are defined on who makes decisions within the Elections process. The Deputy Returning Officer and Returning Officer are appointed by the Trustees to run and govern a fair election. During the Elections process in March 2014 the deputy returning officer worked with an elections group (DRO, Student Voice Coordinator, Democracy and Representation Assistant)toensure an objective viewpoint on the interpretation of rules and regulations. It was not made clear to students that the decision making responsibility within the Union rested with the Deputy Returning Officer, nor that the Returning Officer could be consulted and has the final say in a complaint.

This will be now made clear within the elections guidelines and complaints process, which will be provided to all candidates and published on the elections page for voting students to access.

Boundaries of sabbatical Officers:

VP Education and Democracytook a motion to the All Student Meeting ASM (formerly Student Council) in October 2014 to change the Elections Bye Law to state that:

“All Sabbatical Officersshould equally support all candidates and show no bias”.

It was felt by the current Sabbatical Officers that this change should be recommended as students may feel disengaged from running in the Elections due to not being supported by a current Sabbatical Officer. In addition, having a current Sabbatical Officer support an individual candidate may be seen as that candidate having an advantage or the Union supporting that individual candidate.

ASM approved the motion with small amendments and the Bye Law was approved at the Unions Annual Members Meeting (AMM) on 4th December 2014.

Bye Law 5:

The Elections working group conducted a review of Bye Law 5 highlighting all areas whichneeded to be reviewed. The formal amendments have takenplace as part of the planned, Union-wide Governance review process. Rules regarding online voting, nominations, postal voting, publicity, social media and separating the rules for Student Officer and Sabbatical Elections have all be considered.

The Bye Law was updated, amended and approved at AMM on 4th December 2014

Recommendations:

  • A fully amended and reviewed Bye Law 5 to approved ready for use in March 2015 Sabbatical Officer Elections. - Complete
  • Amend Bye Law if the motion passes at student council concerning Sabbatical involvement in supporting candidates. - Complete
  • A rewrite of Elections rules concentrating on producing professional guidelines for candidates, as well as a small set of firm rules to comply with Union, University and legal obligations when conducting a free and fair election. – underway at Nov 14 in consultation with students
  • An update to Bye Law 1 based on the recommendation to the Governance review working group that our members voting rights should be based on those who receive a University of Portsmouth award, with the exception of closely linked entities such as ICP and Erasmus students, where there is a strong sense from the student body that these groups should be entitled to vote. This will not extend to standing in Elections, where only those leaving with a UOP award will be entitled to stand. - Complete
  • Ensure a clean data set based on the above criteria in line with the Universities IT department. So far as is possible for the Union, as we do not control that data and we will always rely on the University to provide a clean data set based on agreed criteria. – successful pilot in October 2014 and agreed way forward for March 2015.
  • The Elections team review all documents associated to the Elections to make students lives easier in running, understanding rules and partaking in Union activity – underway for March 2015 elections
  • The Union provide clear and prompt (as far as can be) communication with elections candidates and the wider student body on any issues, updates or amendments made to the process. – on-going
  • Complaints will be published in full after the elections close, so long as they do not breach other Union rules and guidelines in relation to Bullying and Harassment etc. – on-going
  • The Students’ Union to work with University marketing and Communications team to inform students about the elections more effectively and work with the University to ensure students have an informed choice. – Underway and on-going with University support.

Fern Lewis – Head of Student Opportunities and DRO