SOLACE ELECTIONS CONFERENCE
19 JANUARY 2017
Case study: Registration Process
Janie Berry
(Acting) Returning Officer for Derby
Director of Governance and Monitoring Officer
Derby City Council
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Case studies: Interactive workshops
Case study: Registration process
Scenario
In preparation for the local elections in May 2016, a candidates and agents’ briefing had been planned in advance of the March 2016 nomination period. This was a well-attended event (held on a Saturday morning) and detailed presentations relating to the nomination process were given by the Returning Officer. A presentation was also given by the Single Point of Contact (SPOC) from Derbyshire Constabulary. Operational Police were also in attendance. Heavy reference was made to the Electoral Commissions’ Guidance to support potential candidates.
Having attended the briefing, RS submitted his nomination forms to stand as a candidate for the Allestree Ward in Derby.
Within his nomination papers, RS advised that he qualified to stand as he was a resident in the City. The necessary checks were undertaken and RS’ nomination was deemed valid.
On 8 April 2016, RS was confirmed as the Conservative Party candidate along with three other candidates.
The campaign period for this Ward proved unremarkable. However, a query was received from the local media (who have a very keen interest in the local elections) questioning RS’s eligibility to stand as a candidate when they understood his business to be outside of the City boundary.
At the conclusion of the count, RS was confirmed as the successful candidate. He received 2,820 votes out of a total 4647. He had a majority of 2,035. This was one of the largest majority wins of all the results declared across the City.
On 15 May 2016, RS attended the induction briefing for all newly elected and reelected Councillors. The induction briefing covered a number of key issues including:
· Photographs, ID and security, IT and tour of the Council House
· Code of Conduct
· DBS requirements for all Councillors
· Committee structures
RS’ demeanour throughout this briefing became increasingly agitated.
On 16 May 2016, RS emailed his resignation citing personal issues as the explanation.
RS had no further direct communication with Council officers.
Background
RS was not new to local politics.
RS had previously been a ward Councillor from May 2002 until May 2008 when he stood down and did not stand for re-election.
RS had served on a number of committees while a Councillor and was well known in the local political community.
Leading up to his nomination and subsequent win in May 2016, RS had held a senior role in the local Conservative Association which crossed the City and County area.
The ward he sought nomination for was the one he had previously represented. This ward is known to be one of the safest Conservative seats in the Council and historically attracts a high voter turnout.
Derby has 51 Councillors and has elections by thirds. 2016 was the last of the three years. 2017 is a fallow year.
All Councillors receive an annual allowance of just over £10k per annum.
What followed after RS’ resignation
RS’ resignation did come as a shock to all, including the local political community.
Very quickly questions started to be asked and rumours quickly spread that he had health issues, business commitments and also that he did not actually reside in the City.
As a result of the close working relationship held with the Constabulary SPOC, information about the resignation was shared almost immediately, including the earlier query about RS’ business not falling within the City boundary.
The Constabulary made some initial enquiries and, following a check of the Council Tax information for the address given in the nomination form, it transpired that RS was not registered as a Council Tax payer.
The Constabulary then took statements from my staff and I, who had had direct involvement in the nomination process, including copies of all of the material we held about RS.
RS was subsequently interviewed by the Constabulary and immediately advised that:
· he did not reside in the City
· he did not have (qualifying) business interests in the City
· he enjoyed the thrill of local politics and this was his motivation for submitting his nomination
· he had used a friend’s address in January 2016 to ensure he was a registered elector in the City in time for publication of the March 2016 Register of Electors
· once elected, he planned to step down at the earliest opportunity ie local elections in 2018 so that no one would discover the true circumstances and to prevent the Council incurring additional costs of a by-election
· he did not implicate any other person in his planning.
At the conclusion of their investigation, RS was charged with an offence under s13D Representation of the People Act 1983 – Provision of False Information. RS pleaded guilty.
The case was listed before a District Judge sitting in the Magistrates Court on 23August 2016.
RS received a two month custodial sentence.
The Council submitted an application to recover the costs of the by-election. However, as the by-election was still to take place, and thus the final costs to be determined, this application failed.
The by-election took place in September 2016. The Conservative Party candidate won but with a much reduced majority.
Questions
1. What went well?
2. Should the Returning Officer have done more to check the validity of the nomination ground prior to the candidates being confirmed?
3. What about the query raised by the local media?
4. What if the media query had concerned RS’ address or generally queried his ground for nomination? What action would have been taken?
5. If, on the face of it, RS’ nomination and subsequent success was not challenged, which aspect of the events in question triggered him to resign?
Questions and answers
Question 1 - What went well?
· Good attendance at the candidates’ and agents’ briefing sessions. Register of attendance was made and retained.
· Attendance of the Constabulary at the briefing sessions. Their attendance was not only useful in terms of their contribution, but was also a very visible presence and demonstration of our partnership working.
· Prompt sharing of information with the SPOC resulted in an efficient and effective investigation and ultimate prosecution.
· Meticulous keeping of a log of actions and paperwork retained by Returning Officer and Elections staff.
Question 2 – Should the Returning Officer have done more to check the validity of the nomination ground prior to the candidates being confirmed?
· No. The Returning Officer must take the information provided by the prospective candidate on face value.
Question 3 - What about the query raised by the local media?
· Queries from the local media can prove very helpful. They often undertake quite an extensive scrutiny of the candidates and so tend to research their circumstances, especially if the candidate is relatively well known.
· In this instance RS had not sought to rely on his business as a ground for nomination, therefore there was little that could be done.
Question 4 - What if the media query had concerned RS’ address or generally queried his ground for nomination? What action would have been taken?
· This is an interesting point. The responsibility for the maintenance and integrity of the electoral register rests with the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO).
· If the local media, or indeed anyone, shared this concern, the ERO would have had the ability to consider conducting a review (as prescribed by the Electoral Commission’s Guidance on Individual Electoral Registration). Given the proximity of Polling Day, a Type C review would have been conducted. This places the burden on the voter, in this instance the candidate, of providing sufficient evidence to demonstrate residence at the stated address.
· This is a useful procedure and the role of the ERO should not be under-estimated.
Question 5 - If, on the face of it, RS’ nomination and subsequent success was not challenged, which aspect of the events in question triggered him to resign?
· It later transpired that RS made the decision to resign after he was advised at the induction session that the Council would be undertaking DBS checks of all Councillors. The Council did not undertake DBS checks in 2002 but this has recently been introduced as an additional safeguard towards robust governance.
· As RS had provided a false address on his nomination papers, he realised that it would be impossible to provide sufficient evidence to satisfy the DBS’ requirements relating to residence.
8