the association of electoral administrators · bloxham, elly cook, heather evans, katherine...

-

THE ASSOCIATION OF ELECTORAL ADMINISTRATORS

TO: ALL SOUTHERN BRANCH MEMBERS

From: Keith Butler Secretary, Southern Branch

c/o Council Offices Woodgreen Witney Date: 9 January 2020 Oxon, OX28 1NB Tel: 01993 861521 EMail: [email protected]

NOTICE OF BRANCH MEETING ASSOCIATION OF ELECTORAL ADMINISTRATORS

Southern Branch

Notice is given that a meeting of the Southern Branch of the Association will be held at the offices of Test Valley Borough Council, Beech Hurst, Weyhill Road, Andover, SP10 3AJ on Friday, 17 January 2020, at the conclusion of the AGM.

Wi-fi is available: TVBC-Public; Council1

Branch Secretary

A G E N D A

1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

2. MINUTES

To consider the minutes of the meeting of the Branch held on 19 September 2019 (attached, page 4)

3. MATTERS ARISING

4. NOTICE OF ANY ADDITIONAL BUSINESS

5. AEA BOARD MEETING: 25 SEPTEMBER 2019

The minutes of the meeting of the AEA Board held on 25 September 2019 are attached at page 12.

6. CANVASS REFORM

(a) To consider as necessary/desired, in the context of the current situation; and

-

(b) To note the response approved by the Consultation Papers Panel in relation to the design of canvass reform communications, a copy of which is attached at page 20, and thank the Panel for its work.[Note: the AEA’s response is also available, from https://www.aea-elections.co.uk/policy-reporting/consultations-responses/]

7. ELECTORAL COMMISSION

Phillippa Saray, Regional Manager for the East and South East, will be present, and will update the Branch on Commission matters. As usual, there will also be an opportunity for comment and questions.

8. PARLIAMENTARY GENERAL ELECTION IN DECEMBER 2019

This is an opportunity to remember some of the horrors of this unscheduled election, and to raise issues of interest or concern.

9. AEA COMPOSITE ACTION PLAN/BUSINESS PLAN

Branch will recall that the Roundtable action points have now been incorporated into a “Composite Action Plan” which also includes matters which were in the Business Plan and the Use of Balances Action Plan, and that this is a standing agenda item for Branch meetings. The latest version of the Composite Action Plan is due to be updated by AEA Management Team and Board shortly. In the circumstances, the Target Plan attached at page 26 has been supplied for this meeting, for consideration/comment.

10. AEA POLICY POSITIONS

Branch will recall previous consideration/noting of the AEA Policy Positions. The latest version is attached at page 32 and was approved by AEA Board on 25 September 2019, at which meeting it was also requested that it is considered as an item of Branch business each year. Any comments or suggestions made at the meeting will be communicated directly to the AEA.

11. AEA COMMUNICATIONS

(a) The most recent AEA Quarterly Update for Branches is attached for consideration and comment (page 53); and

(b) The Chair will take the opportunity to remind colleagues of the desirability of reading AEA communications, weekly newsletters etc.

This is also an opportunity for the Branch to raise other issues on which it wishes to give feedback to the Association nationally.

12. LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND

Alison Evison of LGBCE will give a talk to the meeting on the work of the Commission and the process for reviews.

13. BRANCH TRAINING

(a) The Chair will report on the appointment of a Branch Trainer; and (b) The Branch Training Officer will report on future training.

https://www.aea-elections.co.uk/policy-reporting/consultations-responses/


-

14. NEW MEMBERS

The following have joined the Branch since its last meeting: Charlotte Cobb (Aylesbury Vale); Sandra Deary (Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole); Eryl Pearcey (Bracknell Forest); Emma Faulkner (Cherwell); Debbie Ames (Eastleigh); Paul Harrington (Reading); Claire Blunden, Phil Cridge and Anouska Miemczyk-Leek (West Berkshire); Sharon Ellison and Zena Holliday (West Oxfordshire); Dominic Everall (Windsor and Maidenhead); Caroline Linton (Print UK). Total Branch membership is currently 208, consisting of 183 full members; 13 corporate members; eight past service members; and four honorary members.

15. CONFERENCE BURSARY 2020

The Chair will report on the outcome of the request for applicants for the national bursary to attend Conference 2020.

16. ITEMS FOR FUTURE BRANCH MEETINGS

Members are invited to put forward any ideas for guests/speakers they would like for future meetings of the Branch, or items for inclusion in the agendas.

17. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

Agenda Item No. 2

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE SOUTHERN BRANCH OF THE AEA

Thursday 19 September, 2019 at 10 a.m.

Held at the offices of Test Valley Borough Council

PRESENT

Branch Officers: Frances Cleland (Test Valley – Chair); Jane Hardy (Fareham – Training Officer); and Keith Butler (West Oxfordshire – Secretary) Berkshire: Will Drapans, Emma Young (Bracknell Forest); Clare Ockwell (West Berkshire); Andrew Larkinson (Slough); Claire Le Moual; Sam Whitcher (Wokingham); Buckinghamshire: Barbara Jeffries (Chiltern and South Bucks); Matt Rae (Wycombe); Dorset: Lillian Broad, Jonathan Mair (Dorset Council); Hampshire & IoW: Jack Grounds (Basingstoke and Deane); Kerry Crimble, Sam Jones (Eastleigh); Kevin Greenhough, Deborah Vaughan (Hampshire County Council); Andy Tiffin (Hart); Beccy Drummond (New Forest); Ian Fitchett (Portsmouth); Marijke Elst, Mike Hickman (Southampton); Karen Shipperley, Jo Sullivan (Test Valley); Karen Vincent (Winchester); Oxfordshire: Natasha Clark (Cherwell); Martin John (Oxford); Steven Corrigan, Sam Ebsworth, Kerry Earp, Chris McMullin (South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse); Wiltshire: Matthew Box, Rachel Thomas (Swindon); Simon Pollen, Caroline Rudland, (Wiltshire Council); Others: Phillippa Saray (Electoral Commission); Chris Morton and Nasser Sheikh (Cabinet Office); Jeremy Mills (Hobbs the Printers).

35. APOLOGIES

Apologies were received from Brian Smith (AEA); Joanne Hart (Aylesbury Vale); Mel Barrett, Emma Hayton, Beth James, David Lloyd (Basingstoke and Deane); Matt Pitcher (Vice Chair), Claire Procter (Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole); Ann Moore, Phil Sadler (Bracknell Forest); Lesley Farrell, Nick Graham, Aaron Hetherington, Sharon Hickson, Richard Woods (Cherwell); Leslie Ashton, Mathew Bloxham, Elly Cook, Heather Evans, Katherine Farooqi, Tom Fowler, Clare Gray, Charlie Griffin, Jack Pearce (Chiltern and South Bucks); Jacqui Andrews, Sharon Collier, Jo Corben, Julia Duncan, Leigh Johnson, Kerri McTaggart, Isla Mitchell, Amanda Powell, Matt Prosser, Kirsty Riglar, Sonia Stickley (Dorset Council); Lianne Richards (East Hampshire); Liz Burgess, Graeme Jesty (Gosport); Marie Mannveille, Jo Weeks (Hampshire County Council); Penny Bradley, Clare Griffin, Rachael Walker (Hart); Jayne Day (Havant); Clive Joynes, Jill Laurence-Tilley, Simon Wiggins, James Williams (IoW); Debbie Everett, Bob Jackson, Chloe Jenkins, Richard Woods (New Forest); Anita Bradley, Rachel Drinkwater, Rachel Dunn, Mathew Metcalfe, Paul Robinson, Suzette Starmer (Oxford); Stewart Agland, Marguerite Bowers, Alison Herrod, Elizabeth Prothero (Portsmouth); Chris Brooks, Hannah Miles, Ashlyn Mortimer, John Painter, Sophie Small, Gill Smith, Rob Smith, Jane Tabrett, Hollie Wheeler, Emma Williams, Claire Woodford (Reading); Vicci Pepper (Rushmoor); Tash Cole, Matt Dobrowolski, Scott Healey, Mark Heath (Southampton); Fiona Ahern, Sandra Curtis, Cyreenie Francis, Sofia Iqbal, Catherine Meek (Slough); Susan Baker, Marcia Beviere, Margaret Reed (South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse); Sara

(Item 2: Minutes 19 September 2019)

Barros, Susie Kemp, Ella Paul, Lesley Toogood (Swindon); Jennifer Newman (Test Valley); Cerian Absolom, Lucy-Dana Brain, Carlton Brand, Cheryl Byfield, Tracey Clements, Ruth Fry, Ian Gibbons, Tia Jones, Mike Lloyd, Lin Milton, Claire Shoesmith (Wiltshire Council); Kim Beaumont (Winchester); Wendy Allum (Treasurer), Guy Hoffelner, Suzanne Martin (Windsor and Maidenhead); Melanie Dark-Gale, Anne Hunter, Andrew Moulton, Jennifer Phillips, Keith Stoneman, Callum Wernham (Wokingham); Fiona Blackett, Nesha Dhanjal, Ian Hunt, Nikki Jones, Clare Rogers, Catherine Whitehead (Wycombe); Neil Batt, Nigel Buttler, Pamela Loose, Robert Wardle (Retired Members).

36. MINUTES

The minutes of the meeting of the Branch held on 1 March 2019, which had previously been circulated to all members, were approved as a correct record.

37. MATTERS ARISING

There were no matters arising. 38. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS

The Chair advised that, if there was sufficient time, Matt Box would report on the election petition relating to the Highworth Town Council election in May.

39. CABINET OFFICE

(a) Democratic Engagement Chris Morton (Policy Advisor and Project Manager) and Nasser Sheikh (Policy and Project Support Officer) were present and were welcomed to the meeting. Chris gave a presentation on the democratic engagement resources and opportunities available to EROs. The presentation comprehensively outlined the resources and support available for use, and emphasised the benefits of a collaborative approach, and copies of the slides and handouts would be distributed to all Branch members. Details of the democratic engagement champion covering the Branch area would also be circulated, and in response to a comment about difficulties in attending sessions in London, the meeting was advised that it was intended that the next “Voices in our Democracy” external speaker event would be streamed/available online, and the details would be supplied via the Secretary. Chris also emphasised that feedback on all the aspects of the approach and resources was always welcome. In thanking Chris and Nasser for their attendance and input, the Chair referred to her own attendance at the workshop held in Andover in July, which had been inspiring, and drew attention to the videos which were available to view, including the one produced by MENCAP and the Electoral Commission.

(b) Briefing Note The current Cabinet Office briefing note for Branch meetings had been circulated with the agenda. The Chair queried whether, in the context of there being no current plans for further voter ID pilots, the government’s intentions or potential timescales for legislation were known. Frances also drew attention to the justification led bid process for IER funding, the next round of which was imminent, and recommended colleagues to keep an eye out for it and to apply where necessary.


In relation to the PCC elections in May 2020 (i) there was some discussion concerning the current absence of an appointed PARO for the Thames Valley and the rumoured anticipated appointment which was apparently imminent; and (ii) it was confirmed that Monday 11 May appeared to be a popular choice for the PCC count, in the context of the bank holiday the day after the poll, and the fact that many authorities would also be administering local government elections.

40. AEA BOARD: MEETING HELD 10 JULY 2019

The draft minutes of the meeting of the AEA Board held on 10 July 2019 had been circulated. During consideration, the Chair drew attention to the recent publication of the AEA’s post elections report for 2019; and referred to the confusing EGM which had taken place in Birmingham during the canvass reform focus day the previous week, which she would be raising at the next Board meeting, on 25 September. At that meeting, she would also seek an update on the Royal Mail and suppliers meetings which had been due to take place in July, partly arising from concerns about the performance of Royal Mail at the European elections. As always, she would welcome comments from Branch members on matters for the Board. The Secretary referred to the revised Code of Ethics and Professional Standards approved in July, which had recently been supplied to him, with a request for the document to be circulated to all members. He also referred to the issue raised by the South West Branch calling on the Association to lobby for a significant increase in the charge for supplying the electoral register, and expressed the hope that this would be followed up. The Branch was supportive of this, and was advised that a paper on the subject was due to be considered by the Board the following week.

41. CANVASS REFORM/CANVASS 2019

(a) Canvass Reform The Canvass reform Champions Branch meeting update had been circulated. Matt Box and Sam Whitcher were present and addressed the meeting, explaining their role and availability for help and support, and highlighting some of the main points from the update document, in particular the need to (i) keep on top of the administration of UPRNs, (ii) decide on the approach to recent additions, within the available parameters; (iii) identify route 3 properties; and (iv) undertake local data matching, if applicable, by January. The need for privacy notices to be reviewed/updated in light of canvass reform was mentioned, and an invitation made for anyone who had developed one to share it via the champions, and attention also drawn to the flowcharts, as recently circulated by the Secretary. Members were encouraged to contact and make use of the three champions for the Branch area. The Chair thanked Sam and Matt, and queried when the final policy statement would be available, and was advised it was expected by the end of the month. Reference was also made to (i) the difficulties some people experienced in obtaining local data; (ii) the objective of maximising the number of route one properties, not least because of funding changes, but the associated recognition of the fact that the processes and benefits would be incremental; and (iii) the uncertainty relating to continued IER funding if canvass reform was delayed. In relation to the possibility of delay in register publication because of an election in the canvass period, and partly arising from the Electoral Commission bulletin issued the previous day, the Chair confirmed the understanding that the software


systems should be able to do what was necessary, including publication of monthly alterations. The Secretary mentioned the fact that if there was a poll at the beginning of December, register publication could not then be delayed, which had implications in terms of early publication and poll cards data etc. Phillippa Saray confirmed that she was aware of this and of the request for Commission guidance on this aspect as well as what had been included in the Bulletin issued the previous day.

(b) Canvass 2019 Branch members were invited to raise issues, concerns or queries in relation to the current canvass. There were no particular problems reported, and reference was made to improved response rates, presumably as a consequence of the anticipation of an early general election.

42. ELECTORAL COMMISSION

Phillippa Saray, Regional Manager for Eastern and South East, was in attendance, and briefly updated the Branch on Commission matters, as follows: (a) Performance Monitoring: Canvass 2019

As in recent years, direct monitoring was using a risk-based approach including, for example, new/inexperienced Electoral Registration Officers. As in 2018, a canvass progress survey would be issued shortly, with a response deadline of 18 October, and seeking high level information as to progress.

(b) Performance Standards for Electoral Registration Officers Work on revised standards, which would aim to integrate with canvass reform and to focus on outcomes, was continuing, and it was anticipated that consultation would take place later this year, with a view to roll-out in March 2020.

(c) Canvass Reform Material Material was being developed, with the aim of materials being both easy for the public to understand, and straightforward in terms of administration.

(d) Revised Registration Guidance Phillippa had reported at previous meetings on the Commission’s project to update, refresh and modernise its guidance, and advised that the first tranche of revamped electoral registration guidance was expected for March 2020.

(e) Voter ID Pilots The Commission had reported on the pilots conducted at the local elections in some areas in May. These had been well-run, and demonstrated that most electors had access to suitable ID, but that it was more problematic for some groups.

(f) Feasibility Studies The Commission had published feasibility studies which had been undertaken in order to inform the debate about registration reform. The Commission would continue to promote modernisation of approach to registration, including links to other public services, in the interests of electors and also administrators.

(g) Report on the European Parliamentary Election The Commission’s report would be published in October. It was expected to be short, there having been no major issues, and would examine the delivery of the


elections and any impact on particular groups of electors, including EU Citizens and overseas electors.

(h) Parliamentary Election Phillippa confirmed that the Commission’s parliamentary guidance had been updated the previous year, and it was not anticipated that there would be any further changes, meaning that the current guidance was what would be in place if there was a general election later this year. Should a general election be called, the Commission would publish a “considerations document”, to include advice on delivering the election during the canvass.

The Branch thanked Phillippa for her attendance and input. 43. ELECTIONS IN MAY 2019

This was an opportunity for Branch members to raise any issues arising from the elections held in May 2019. Unsurprisingly, there was particular mention of the issues around the registration of EU Citizens to vote at the European elections, and to the difficulties arising from such short notice that the European election would be taking place. In that regard, there was general concern that the period for any “snap” parliamentary election would be shorter, and the problems greater, not least because there would be a much higher degree of public interest. The Chair reported that the deadline for the submission of the accounts for the European elections remained late November, but that it was understood that consideration would be given to an extension if a parliamentary election took place. Sam Whitcher referred to a problem with duplicate postal ballot packs being issued in one Ward at the local elections in May, and the fact that the electoral software did not identify duplicates as part of the scanning process.

44. AEA BRANCH ROUNDTABLE: TUESDAY 23 JULY

The notes of the above meeting, which Steven Corrigan and Claire Procter had attended as representatives of the Branch, had been circulated with the agenda. Steven was present and referred to the fact that the circulated notes were very comprehensive, as well as highlighting key points around the enhanced profile of the Association; the positive changes being made in relation to Branch funding and support (which was also the subject of a report to be considered later in this meeting); and the intended production of guidance for administrators in areas relevant to electoral services where there was currently insufficient guidance available, an example being Neighbourhood Plan referendums. Finally, Steven drew attention to some of the topics to be covered at Conference 2020, to the reduction in the fee for the Foundation Course and to the availability of residential courses for new entrants to electoral services; and stated how much he had enjoyed the day. He hoped that colleagues would consider putting themselves forward to attend when the event was next repeated. The Chair then emphasised the key point of the ethos of the Association to be a members’ organisation and the resulting desire for members to give feedback and raise issues etc. The Roundtable meeting had included a session on AEA Communications and, arising from that, attendees were invited to complete a short questionnaire, with the documents to be collated and returned to the AEA’s Communications Manager.


45. AEA COMPOSITE ACTION PLAN

The Branch was reminded that the Roundtable action points had been incorporated into a “Composite Action Plan” which also included matters which had previously been in the Business Plan and the Use of Balances Action Plan. The latest version of the Composite Action Plan had been circulated for information and any comment or feedback, and would remain as a standing agenda item for future Branch meetings. There were no matters arising, but the Chair stated that she would of course be happy to try to help if any member had any queries or concerns.

46. AEA CONSULTATION: BRANCH FUNDING AND SUPPORT

The meeting considered the previously circulated report of the Chair and Secretary, which reminded it of the report submitted to the meeting held 1 March 2019 and summarised the changes in funding and training support which had now been approved by AEA Board. Arising from the future central funding of refreshments and catering at Branch meetings, colleagues were advised that indications of attendance at meetings would always be requested in advance, and asked to be responsive and, wherever possible, to attend if they had said that they would. In relation to training, the Chair drew attention to (i) the opportunity for colleagues to apply to be the Branch Trainer, as covered in the email sent to all members on 2 September, and with an application deadline of Thursday 31 October; and (ii) the comment in the report about establishing a process for the appointment of that trainer. The Branch: RESOLVED:

(a) That the contents of the report be noted; (b) That the Chair and Vice Chair and Marijke Elst be authorised to finalise the

recruitment process for the Branch Trainer and to make an appointment by the requested deadline of 30 November 2019;

(c) That the authority to appoint set out in (b) above shall be ongoing and will therefore apply in the event of a further appointment being necessary in the future; and

(d) That the appointment of the person additional to the Chair and Vice Chair shall accordingly be added to the list of appointments made at each Branch AGM.

47. AEA COMMUNICATIONS: BRANCH QUARTERLY UPDATE

The recently published quarterly update for Branches had been circulated, and the Branch was reminded that comments were welcome, and that this also provided an opportunity for the Branch to raise other issues on which it wished to give feedback to the Association nationally. There were no issues arising.

48. AEA CONFERENCE BURSARY

(a) Conference 2019 Emma Young of Bracknell Forest had been the Southern Branch recipient of the AEA national bursary, and reported on her experience, having found the Conference to be hugely worthwhile and enjoyable, as well as extremely beneficial in terms of meeting people and establishing contacts in the electoral world.


Emma was appreciative of having had the opportunity to attend, and drew attention to the dates for Conference 2020, expressing the hope that Branch colleagues would be encouraged to apply for the Bursary if not otherwise able to attend.

(b) Conference 2020 The Chair reminded the Branch of the invitation for applications for the Bursary for Conference 2020, the deadline for which was midday on Tuesday 15 October. The Secretary would circulate a reminder in the near future.

49. AEA ANNUAL AWARDS

The Chair reminded the Branch of the annual awards scheme and associated deadlines, and advised that, as well as any nominations made by the Branch, any five full members of the Association could submit a nomination for the award, by the deadline of 31 October. It was - RESOLVED: That (i) the report be noted; and (ii) the Chair be authorised to make a nomination(s) on behalf of the Branch if or as desired.

50. BRANCH TRAINING

The Training Officer highlighted the conference workshop on unclear legislation which was taking place following this meeting, and went on to report the intention to run the session on staff recruitment and payments in December, and for 2020 Conference workshops to be delivered from March onwards, with a particular mention of the one on Neighbourhood Plan Referendums, given that that had been a popular training topic requested by Branch members when surveyed. Parishes had been another popular request and consideration would be given to that as soon as possible. As always, Jane would be very pleased to receive comments and suggestions from colleagues, and the Secretary would remind all Branch members of that when circulating the minutes of this meeting.

51. NEW MEMBERS

Pauline Hawkins (Aylesbury Vale); Will Drapans (Bracknell Forest); Tom Fowler (Chiltern and South Bucks); Dan Francis (Gosport); Clare Saul and Claire Short (Havant); James Williams (Isle of Wight); Sharon Bridglasingh and Peter Taylor (Milton Keynes); Beccy Drummond and Chloe Jenkins (New Forest); Chris McMullin (South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse); Karen Shipperley (Test Valley); Cerian Absolom, Ruth Fry, Tia Jones and Simon Pollen (Wiltshire Council); Jonathan Mair (Dorset Council); and Gurpreet Gill (Print UK) had joined the Branch since its last meeting. Will, Beccy, Chris, Karen, Simon and Jonathan were present, and were welcomed to the meeting. Branch membership stood at 232, consisting of 206 full members; 12 corporate members; nine past service members; one affiliate member; and four honorary members.

52. ITEMS FOR FUTURE BRANCH MEETINGS

Members were invited to put forward any ideas for guests/speakers for future meetings, or items for inclusion in the agenda. None were forthcoming, but members were welcome to notify the Secretary of any future wishes.


53. OTHER MATTERS

(a) Highworth Town Council: Election Petition Matt Box spoke briefly to the Branch about the election petition which had been lodged following the elections to Highworth Town Council in May 2019, and which had arisen as a consequence of an error in aggregating the “block votes” given for political party candidates at the election. Matt considered that that the situation underscored the importance of never “taking the eye off the ball” even for a moment, and also highlighted risks associated with overnight counting, this one having been concluded at around 4 am. Colleagues were very appreciative of him being prepared to share the experience.

(b) Branch Officer Elections The Chair reminded colleagues that these would take place ahead of the next scheduled Branch meeting and encouraged people to put themselves forward and to approach existing officers if they had queries about the roles. It was also open to colleagues to approach Laura Lock or Gina Armstrong for advice on the roles of Branch Officers.

The meeting finished at 12:40 pm.


1

MINUTES OF THE AEA BOARD MEETING HELD AT THE

CROWNDALE CENTRE, EVERSHOLT STREET, LONDON ON WEDNESDAY 25 SEPTEMBER 2019 AT 12.30PM

Minute No Matter and Resolution

19/029

Present

Rob Curtis (Chairman), and Glynne Morgan (Deputy Chairman).

Julie Briggs (East Midlands), Frances Cleland (Southern), Amanda Bebb (Wales) (substitute for Rhys George), Alex Mammous (South

East), Linda Mockford (Eastern), Neil Middlehurst (North West), Martyn Harris (West Midlands) (substitute for Liz Read), Andrew

Smith (London), and Margaret Waggott (North East and Yorkshire).

Peter Stanyon (Chief Executive), Laura Lock (Deputy Chief

Executive), Gina Armstrong (Executive Director (Resources)), and

Bill Crawford (Executive Director (Commercial)).

Angela Holden (Policy Manager) was in attendance to take the

minutes of the meeting.

19/030

Apologies for Absence

Apologies for absence were received from Andy Tiffin (Immediate Past Chair), Rhys George (Wales), Andy Hunter (Scotland and

Northern Ireland), Liz Read (West Midlands), Keith Simmons

(Eastern), Geoff Waxman (South West) and Zoe Wilkins (London).

19/031 Notice of matters not on the agenda to be raised as other

Company Business

No matters to be raised as other Company Business were provided.

19/032 Declarations of Interest

No declarations of interest were declared for the meeting.

19/033 Minutes of the Previous Meeting

The Minutes of the meeting of the AEA Board held on 10 July 2019

were received, taken as read and approved as a correct record of

the meeting with the following amendments:

19/20 – Linda Mockford asked that the minutes record that she

abstained from voting in relation to this item.

19/023 – ‘except in exceptional services’ be amended to ‘except in

exceptional circumstances’.

19/034 Minutes of the Meeting of Management Team held on 12 July

2019 and Draft Minutes of the Meeting of Management Team

held on 4 September 2019

Agenda Item No. 5

(Item 5: Board Minutes)

2

A question was raised in relation to minute 19/88 requesting a

report on the number of AEA members for each local authority. Concerns were expressed over the number of members who are

having to pay their own membership fees rather than the local

authority paying.

RESOLVED

1. To receive the minutes of the above-mentioned Management

Team meetings.

2. A report be prepared outlining the number of members per local

authority and that if possible, electorate details also be recorded.

3. The benefits of AEA membership to be highlighted at both the Solace and LGA conferences and other opportunities as they

arise.

19/035 Report of the Chief Executive

• Business Plan 2019/2020 and Business Action Plan

The Chief Executive submitted a report which outlined the AEA

Business Plan for the period 1 October 2019 to 30 September 2023. The Business Action Plan for the same period was also received.

The Chief Executive highlighted that a large number of actions for 2018/2019 had been completed and the remaining actions,

including longer-term actions, had been carried forward together with the identification of new actions. The document is a live

document and would be brought back to each AEA Board meeting.

A question was asked in relation to communications and whether

the AEA has enough resources going forward. Whilst a Communications Manager has now been appointed to work part-

time, which has seen the AEA profile being raised, do we have enough resources going forward? The Chief Executive highlighted

the media coverage following the publication of the post-election report and confirmed that media position statements were in place

ready for a UK Parliamentary general election. It was also noted that at the last election the Electoral Commission were diverting

media queries to ourselves for comment. It was confirmed that the Communications Manager works 2 days a week and works her hours

across 7 days and she would do what she can. There was also a conversation about how a lot of our communication needs still

required input relating to electoral matters before the

Communications Manager could make a response.

RESOLVED

1. To approve the Business Plan and the Business Action Plan.

2. To monitor the situation regarding Communications and the

resources needed going forward.

• Composite Action Plan Outstanding Actions


3

The 2018/2019 Composite Action Plan was presented and the

progress noted.

• Risk Register

The Chief Executive submitted the Risk Management Assessment for

2019/2020 and agreed to include ‘communications’ as an area of

activity risk following the discussions at the previous item.

RESOLVED

To approve the Risk Management Assessment with the inclusion of

‘communications’ as an area of enhanced activity risk following the

discussion under consideration of the Business Action Plan.

• Post-Election Position Statement

The Chief Executive highlighted that the position statement was

ready for publication before the Parliamentary summer recess,

however due to Government changes and the political uncertainty at Westminster, the decision was taken to delay publication. The

position statement was therefore published on Monday 16 September 2019 with embargoed copies being sent to key

stakeholders. The statement had received media coverage in national newspapers, the Chief Executive of the Electoral

Commission has sent the Chief Executive a supportive note and the

Minister has asked for a meeting with the AEA.

It was noted that the statement had been well received by members

although there were concerns in relation to the list of previous

outstanding recommendations.

RESOLVED To note the Chief Executive’s report.

The Chief Executive also reported on agenda items for the next

Board meeting in December.

• Articles of Association and Standing Orders

The Chief Executive and Chairman highlighted that it had become

apparent when administering the recent EGM that the Association’s Standing Orders and Articles of Association are outdated and should

be modernised and streamlined. A discussion took place in which it was noted that the process is entrenched in a local government

format that is not the easiest to follow. It was also noted that work had already commenced to look at alternative structures and

processes for the future and it was acknowledged that this was a

sensible approach.

As a result, a revised set of Articles of Association would be brought to the next meeting, with revised Standing Orders being considered

at the February meeting.

RESOLVED To note the Chief Executive’s report.

19/036 Report of the Executive Director (Resources)


4

• Register of Contracts and Register of Gifts and Hospitality

The Executive Director (Resources) submitted a list of contracts that had been included in the Register of Contracts since the last

meeting and reported that there were no items included in the

Register of Gifts and Hospitality since that meeting.

RESOLVED To note the report.

• Financial Reports – Current Budget Report and Budget

Profile Report

The Executive Director (Resources) presented the current budget

report and budget profile report for information.

RESOLVED To note the budget reports.

• Membership Report

The Executive Director (Resources) informed the meeting that membership now stood at 2,014 which was the highest it has ever

been.


• Company and Financial Returns

The Executive Director (Resources) submitted a report on the

company and financial returns made since the last meeting,

confirming that all necessary returns had been made.


• Wellbeing Policies

The Executive Director (Resources) reported that EELGA had drafted

a Wellbeing policy which was compliant with all HR legislation. Gina had commented on the first draft and a further draft has been

received. A final version will be circulated to all staff and Board

members in due course.


• Communications

The Executive Director (Resources) reported that the Communications Manager had been working on various projects

with some projects on hold at present.


• Model Branch Constitution

The Executive Director (Resources) reported that the Model Branch

Constitution was adopted for recommendation to branches in 2006. Many branches have adopted the model with others making changes

to reflect officer posts and terms of office. Board members had

received a copy of the revised model with the relevant changes highlighted. It was noted that the change to Rule 11.3 was required

to reflect the recent changes to the Articles of Association. Board


5

members considered and discussed various aspects of the revised

model.

RESOLVED

1. To approve the content of the Model Branch Constitution.

2. To circulate a final version to Board members which highlights

the sections that ‘must’ be included and the sections that are

‘optional’.

• Staff hours report

The Executive Director (Resources) reported the staff hours as at the end of July. It was noted that Management Team review staff

hours at every meeting with Board receiving the report once a year.

RESOLVED To note that there were currently no significant issues

with staff hours.

19/037 Report of the Management Team – Draft Annual Budget

Report 2019/2020

The Executive Director (Resources) presented the draft annual

budget for 2019/20 for consideration and highlighted key points that

had been taken into account whilst drafting the budget.

A question was asked in relation to consultancy and whether the

high need for consultancy within local authorities is a sign of a bigger issue. It was noted that the European elections had

increased the need for consultants and there are a significant number of job vacancies being advertised on the AEA website, with

some local authorities struggling to recruit. It was hoped that the start of the apprenticeship scheme would introduce new people to

the profession for a career.

RESOLVED To approve the draft budget for 2019/20.

19/038 Report of the Deputy Chief Executive

• Policy Positions

The Deputy Chief Executive presented a paper which outlined the

Association’s policy positions on various electoral matters which once approved would be made available on the public area of the

AEA website.

An issue was raised which should be included in relation to the

disenfranchisement of certain groups following the Voter ID pilots. In addition, it was suggested that the ‘Question or Issue’ listed

should all be made into questions.

Any branch member feedback should be reported back to

Management Team who would also appreciate the policy positions

being included as a branch item of business each year.

RESOLVED


6

1. That the policy positions be approved with the following

amendments:

• Include a comment regarding Voter ID pilots and the

disenfranchisement of certain groups; and

• the ‘Question or Issue’ as listed all being changed into

questions.

• Register Fees Policy Paper

The Deputy Chief Executive presented a draft policy position paper

on ‘The Sale of the Register of Electors’ for consideration. Members welcomed the paper.

RESOLVED

1. That the policy position paper on ‘The Sale of the Register of

Electors be approved subject to the remove reference to

‘Appendix A’ at paragraph 5.

2. The draft paper to be circulated to all Board members for them to share with their key branch officers and to feedback any

comments prior to publication.

• ERRWG – Report of AEA Representative

The Deputy Chief Executive presented a note of the Electoral Commission’s Elections, Referendums and Registration Working

Group meeting held on 12 September 2019 which was attended by the Policy Manager. It was noted that consideration will need to be

given at the December meeting as to whether to appoint a Board

Representative or to instead receive a written report from the officer representative.


19/039 Report of the Executive Director (Commercial)

The Board received the report of the Executive Director (Commercial) on commercial matters, including Conference 2020

and 2021, Canvass Focus Day 2019, training, consultancy and

professional services.


19/040 Other Company Business of which notice has been given

There were no additional items of business.

19/041 Notice of matters not on the agenda to be raised as other

Electoral and Membership Matters

No matters to be raised as other Electoral and Membership Matters

were provided.

19/042 Report of the Executive Director (Resources)

• Branch Business


7

The Executive Director (Resources) submitted a report detailing the

minutes of branch meetings that she had received since the AEA Board meeting on 10 July. She mentioned that subsequent to the

preparation of this report, she had also received the draft minutes

of the Southern Branch meeting held on 19 September 2019.


19/043 Branch AEA Board Representatives Reports

Board Branch Representatives comments were sought on any

matters of concern or interest, including matters raised at Branch

meetings. Matters were raised as follows:

• Concerns regarding the appointed proxy checks with other local authorities and one local authority asking for the request to be

made in writing.

Agreed: that a guidance paper be prepared highlighting that it is

good practice to provide confirmation over the telephone when requested by other local authorities and to highlight the

disclosure of the elector franchise to ensure they are eligible to

vote in the election.

• In connection with a potential UK Parliamentary general election,

concerns regarding a Returning Officer who is the Mayor supporting a candidate and the protocol of the impartiality role of

the Returning Officer.

Agreed: that a guidance sheet should be prepared highlighting

some of the issues you need to consider in relation to the Returning Officer and their role at a UK Parliamentary general

election.

• Concerns over the possibility of two different registration dates if

the UK parliamentary general election is held on 5 December as it would depend on whether the local authority publishes their

register in November or on 1 December. It was felt that there would need to be a consistent registration deadline across the

UK. Board were informed that a joint meeting of the AEA,

Electoral Commission and Cabinet Office was being arranged to

discuss this issue.

• BBC reporting that legislation could be made to set the date of the UK parliamentary general election whereby only a majority

vote in Parliament would be needed.

• Polling district review and concerns over EMS not being able to

have any elections open when publishing a revised register. Suggested the member went back to the software company for

further advise.

RESOLVED To note the matters raised and the two action points

above.


8

The Chief Executive and Deputy Chief Executive also raised the

following issues:

• Electoral Integrity Panel

The Chief Executive highlighted that further information regarding

the Bill should be available shortly.

• Royal Mail

The Chief Executive, Deputy Chief Executive, Chairman and Deputy

Chairman had met with Royal Mail that morning to discuss the

concerns of members. The majority of issues in relation to delayed deliveries at the last election appear to relate to mail sent via ‘Down

Stream Access (DSA)’ and not ‘Royal Mail Retail’. Unfortunately, Royal Mail are unable to discuss DSA issues with members as the

contract is not with them but with the DSA. The importance of requesting written confirmation at the various stages in order to

provide an audit trail was highlighted. In addition, if you are using DSAs for overseas postal votes you may need to consider asking

your supplier if there are other alternative methods for posting

those.

• Training: Personal resilience courses

The Deputy Chief Executive reported that personal resilience

courses would be available for members in the new year which will be subsided by the Member Support Fund and will cost £100 per

delegate.

19/044 Presentation

The Chairman gave a presentation to Bill Crawford Executive

Director (Commercial) who was leaving the AEA after years of service with the Association. The Chairman thanked Bill for his

contributions to the organisation and for being an amazing colleague and friend over the years. Bill will be missed by

everyone.

19/045 Other Electoral and Membership Matters business of which

notice has been given

There were no additional items of business.

The meeting commenced at 12:30pm and closed at 3:45pm


Agenda Item No. 6B

RESPONSE BY SOUTHERN BRANCH OF THE ASSOCIATION OF

ELECTORAL ADMINISTRATORS (AEA)

on the

DESIGN OF CANVASS REFORM COMMUNICATIONS

GENERAL COMMENTS: 1. As a general principle we like the A4 form designs with the names on the first page,

we feel that this will be more appealing to electors and should improve response rates.

2. We also liked the principle of less words than the current HEF forms, but as detailed later, do feel that some of the wording could be amended.

3. We questioned the use of “The Occupier” as the addressee, it was felt that “The Resident/s” may be more appropriate in many cases, but it was also raised that this wouldn’t work where the property was empty, but discussed that going forward when we may have additional capacity to undertake targeted canvassing it may be more appropriate to try and address the forms differently for different property types/ potential commercial/holiday lets/second homes, to improve ownership for a response.

4. We are of the opinion that the forms are trying to use standard messaging where possible but may need to go a bit further, so everyone gets a consistent message regardless of the communication they are receiving.

5. We questioned whether the use of light blue on dark blue works well for visually impaired and maybe if we are using colours on the forms they should be to assist targeted audiences rather than being the Electoral Commissions corporate colours.

6. A point was raised about the form size, our view was the CCA & CCB forms would be on A4 paper, but the CF would be on A3 – and felt that this would help to change the messaging and reduce print cost. If this is not the case perhaps further clarification can be provided.

7. We consider that a section on the back of the CCA may need to be included (if authorities haven’t previously used a similar process) to explain the change in process and there being no need to respond to this communication now. This would reduce the potential calls into the elections teams. If this section was generic but with a weblink it could help with registering if an election was called in the future and be a messaging tool/section in future years. It was felt this wasn’t required on the CCB & CF forms as these were similar to the current process, requesting a response.

8. Across all the communications, the point of contact telephone numbers and emails was discussed with some preferring to show them at the start and others tending to put them latter in the document in the hope that electors will be less likely to call straight away without reading the forms. It was felt that having the option to put the relevant contact details where the Electoral Registration Officer felt was best for their area was best, as depending on the capacity of the team within their council would depend on how visual this information should be.

9. It was noted that the opt out and postal information was removed from all these communications this was with mixed views. Some felt this was the opportunity for electors to confirm and amend this information while there is capacity to delay with this. While others felt that this would improve the response rates as there would be less questions and potential changes to information which wasn’t fully understood.

(Item 6B: CPP Canvass Reform)

10. We were all in agreement that requesting a postal vote could be covered by a section in the back of the forms, titled “Postal or proxy votes” saying something along the lines of “To arrange to vote by post or proxy (someone voting on your behalf) you can download an application form at <<Weblink>>.”

11. Across all the forms these work well for the 4 or 5 electors listed, but these forms may have formatting issues with regards to long names e.g. Sri Lanka names or properties with more than 4-5 electors – would we try and fit more rows onto forms, or will the maximum number of electors be descripted? We would then have to go to multiple page forms more often. For example, on CCB-E there is space to list 4 electors. If there are 8 electors in the property, would this trigger a second form for the property to keep the formatting of the form consistent or would all electors be listed regardless of number and the remaining text of the form be moved further down the page or overleaf?

12. It is mentioned about the easiest way to respond being online but there is no mention of the cost savings, should this also be referenced as this is a significant factor.

13. It was felt across all forms that under point 3 – Update your household information and submit. Where it says “You only need their names and nationalities” that in some properties such as HMO’s or other properties. For some electors to provide an accurate nationality is problematic and may put people off responding, it was discussed that the nationality issue could be resolved at the ITR phase not the Household phase?

14. It was requested that all these forms are supplied in a range of formats to assist electoral administrators to use these quickly rather than just being provided in pdf. With regards to the email it may also be useful to also provide in mail formats to reduce the potential formatting issues.

COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC COMMUNICATIONS

Canvass communication A (CCA) 15. It was raised that the general content of this communication was the most liked but

felt that there needed to be amendments to some of the wording to improve the messaging.

16. We liked the use of the boxes but felt the words should be amended and that the emphasis on the first box needs to be changed as most will skim read “they do not need to respond”, while some will, Should the boxes be swapped over on location.

17. Could the words” Take action if” and “Do nothing if” be used instead of the “do not” and “must”, this is plain English and more directive, the word respond is used more to reply rather than providing information on changes as this won’t be a requirement.

18. On these boxes it was also pointed out that those who tend to reply will never have a problem with completing forms/following instructions and the wording. However, those who we really need to consider are those who do not read wordy forms/letters easily. We would therefore suggest using more icons/pictures (ensuring disability standards are met) which would draw attention to where it is needed. For example: Adding icons like these and bullet point the points – clear and concise, not wordy:

19. It was questioned whether any discussions have taken place with the software

suppliers on the feasibility of electors being added by the automated telephone


channels? Have they confirmed that their services would be improved to incorporate voice recognition for example to enable the adding of electors via the phone? If not then the reference to security codes would be redundant and councils would have to provide significant resources to handle the potential pressures of electors calling phone lines to make amendments, which shouldn’t be underestimated. Therefore, if there is not a technological solution available it may be appropriate to have this as an option for ERO’s to chose to include should they have the resource to facilitate.

20. We noted that there was no mention of voting on this communication, it was felt that it was vital that there was something on this, on the form as many citizen’s do not know what the “Electoral Register” is and call up asking to get registered for voting.

21. It was felt that if the only change was to add someone else not listed then perhaps a better way to deal with this would be to signpost electors to the gov.uk/registertovote website rather than get them to respond and then tell them they also need to go here. As a response is not now a requirement for this communication - Unless all the ITR information was being collected via the response weblink in this scenario?

22. A point was raised that there is no mention of what to do if you need to delete someone, it simply says you must respond if the information is wrong? If the instructions are not crystal clear it leads to an increase in telephone calls putting pressure on resource in the office.

Canvass communication A Envelope (CCA - ENV) & Canvass communication B & CF Envelope (CCB+CF - ENV) 23. Our view was that things were being over complicated with having two envelopes

for these communications, although people in the electoral community can see the different messages, electors wouldn’t see the difference, this may be adding an additional complication and potentially extra cost to the process. It may also cause issues when printing to ensure the right forms are sent in the right envelopes.

24. Our view was that one generic envelope with generic wording would be preferred – An example of the wording could be: - “If you live here, you must read and take action, if required, to stop further communications.”

25. It was recognised that the messages might help in getting electors to open them though? So if there is specific research to back this up having the two messages, then this could out way the points above?

26. The contact information should be on the flap rather than across the back of the form, as this would reduce the cost of printing, unless there again is research which confirms that this improves the response rates, as it also makes the contact details for the channels we don’t want them to use easily available.

27. It was discussed that having a Royal Mail box on the envelopes helps speed up dealing with the undeliverable ones e.g.

Royal Mail use only – we were unable to deliver because: - House boarded up Under Construction Demolished No such address Date_____________ Badge no._________ Initials______


http://www.gov.uk/registertovote

Canvass communication B (CCB) 28. We all felt that that the wording “our records show there may be a change…….”etc

would cause many queries we would be unable to help with and complaints on what is being done with their data. From our IER experience, it is DWP data that doesn’t match, not that the current register information is incorrect which must be made clear. We also currently have limited information to be able to help with what is incorrect and why they didn’t match!

29. For this reason, it was felt that this sentence should be removed as electors don’t know what we have done, so do we need to raise it? It will invite criticism. Could we just leave the title as “You must take action, so we can check who is eligible to register to vote at this address”.

30. Some Members liked the bold lettering stating “You are legally required to respond to this letter” but with no option to return the form, felt this could cause issues for some residents. It was also raised that the legal requirement should be outlined with act etc but it was then noticed this is contained within the privacy statement and is on the current HEF’s.

31. Other members felt that the mention of the legal bit should be optional as may be appropriate on reminders but may cause more issues on the initial forms. On consistent messaging we felt the email sentence of “You must respond to confirm if the information is correct and provide the details of anyone else eligible to register to vote at this address” was better and could be used instead of the “You are legally sentence”

32. The same issues were also raised on the telephone sentence as raised for Canvass Communication A.

33. Our view is that the final sentence doesn’t fit for this Communication, the “If you need to update this information” needs to be removed as there is no choice in responding to this form. It should read something like – “When responding you will be required….”

34. There is no mention that adding someone online or by phone that people are still required to complete their registration at www.gov.uk/registertovote or will be sent future correspondence. It was felt this does need to be covered somewhere on the form as electors will feel completing this form will be registering them if it isn’t!

35. Branch members are still experiencing issues with the two part process, with electors just going online, so feel that any way to collect all the information needed during the first point of contact should be investigated, or at least mentioned. It does also need to cover that by adding people’s names to this form, will not register them. Suggesting collection by web channels would be the easiest way and mean a seamless change between processes.

Canvass Form (CF) 36. The same issues were also raised on the “Our records” & “telephone” sentences as

raised for Canvass Communication A & B. 37. The same suggestion on consistent messaging across all on the “You are legally”

sentence being amended as suggested in Canvass Comms B, so it is the same sentence as the email comms.

38. It was raised that all the electors being on the same page, current and potential was a good thing rather than separating them across two pages.

39. It was also raised that the order of the boxes on the form may be something which should be left to individual ERO’s to decide on, as some would prefer to put the who is eligible before the section 1A. This may make electors read it before adding people.


http://www.gov.uk/registertovote

40. It was also raised that the “no one eligible“ section was missing, as we are using data, we may find that there are more empties in route 2. Especially as there is now less discounts for empties with council tax, so some residents now don’t report this information and therefore we won’t have it to make a route change. Some ERO’s who have many second homes will need this box on these forms to collect this information.

41. A suggestion to simplify the “no one eligible” box was raised removing the tick’s boxes and just have a “Reason box” with potentially examples? Saving space and using less words, this suggestion was supported by the group.

42. It was however noted that this was only a populated Canvass Form and no blank form was provided, so this may be addressed on the blank form, if one has been created. Pre-populated forms could still become empty though, so there was support to include this again.

43. The Reference to a reply envelope may need to be removed, as our understanding is that it is not a requirement to send a reply envelope with every form now.

44. Our interpretation of this form was that it probably would still be on A3 but with a blank page, it was mentioned that a blank page was a waste of space. Could it be used to collect ITR information with multiple signatures, reducing the need for ITR stage communications.

45. We question the relevance of including whether a pending elector is over 76 at this stage in 1B? It will cause unnecessary confusion and is not required at this stage, we felt this should be left for collection at the ITR stage - it was discussed that there may also be confusion having a 76 marker in section 1A but not one 1B but to simplify the form the overwhelming view was to remove the 76 marker from section 1B.

46. We also questioned the need to have a nationality pre-printed as this is often the area of complaint with electors crossing out British and inserting English or Welsh etc. We understand that this is something we need to confirm but it rarely changes, and could this not be picked up in another way? Via citizenship or be confirmed with DWP data as well?

47. A point was raised which was supported by most, around the inclusion of the “Optional” below the email and phone. It was suggested that removing this may increase the collection of this information and increase the potential channel shift in the future. We agree that somewhere it needs to say the collection of this information is optional but raised that this could be done in more detail to explain the use in a section on the back. Something like “Any contact details provided will only be used for electoral purposes and future correspondence these can be removed at any time.”

48. We do not like the amended Declaration – it is better than the current HEF declaration, which does create complaints from electors who don’t reside at the property. However, we feel that this new declaration could still cause issues, could it not be “I Declare that to the best of my knowledge, the information on this form is true.” As this would work for anyone signing the form/completion a return.

49. We had some discussion around the inclusion of the reference of the fine – some felt this sometimes puts people off responding, as it is perceived to be threatening, is it something we want to always use when in practice it is rarely enforced. Could this be optional as some ERO’s may want to remove on earlier communications but include in reminders?


50. We discussed the need to raise the ITR part of the process on this form somewhere rather than not to inform electors of the next step of the registering process!

Canvass Email (EC-E) 51. To continue the consistent messaging, we felt the Subject line should be the same

as our suggestion on the CCB form. 52. Our general view is that the boxes could cause issues when sending emails

increasing the size of the email and creating formatting issues? Removing the address column may assist with this and this could easily be put above the electors’ names table, which aligns with the other communication and simplifies the formatting of the email.

53. This email has the same issues around the telephone security code sentence. 54. It was raised that hyperlinks could be used on the eligibility to register - to a page

listing who is eligible – same may also want to hyperlink the email and telephone to assist electors using this as means of communication.

55. While we understand the need to have an unsubscribe option we don’t like the Unsubscribe sentence being so bold – could this be dealt with by a foot note and hyperlink?

56. It was raised that there should be something around the privacy statement but felt this could also be dealt with by hyperlink to a privacy statement as a footnote.

57. Concerns were also raised over the formatting required for the boxes and the number of characters in some elector’s names, this may cause issues.

58. Can we have clarity on the response mechanism – would a response to the email be enough, if so would this be built into the software systems or would we need to have a reply auto response directing people to respond via the email response weblink.

59. Do we really need to have nationality in the email? As space is limited and if removed there is less personal email sent out and it is simplified – this information could be on the email response web link anyway.


The Association of Electoral Administrators Target plan for the period 2019 to 2023

No Target / Action Commentary Deadline Owner

1. Corporate writing style to be drafted and associated training

to be arranged for key staff

31/10/2019 Communications Manager

2. Review the Association’s

communication channels, to

include feedback from Branch Round Table and branches, and

report findings and recommendations to AEA Board

04/12/2019 AEA

Board

Communications

Manager

3. To review the provision of course materials to Foundation

Course attendees

31/12/2019 Chair – Qualifications

Board

4. To fully review the Association’s Articles of Association and

Standing Orders

05/02/2020 Annual General

Meeting

Executive Director

(Resources)

5. Arrange BBC studios visits for

key officers

29/02/2020 Communications

Manager

6. Develop templates for members on key processes than can be

tailored locally and shared with internal communications teams,

local media and other key stakeholders, e.g. councillors


Agenda Item No. 9

(Item 9: Target Plan)



7. Develop an overarching communications strategy to

include the media strategy and writing style plus an approach

to social media, marketing/exhibition materials

and a branding guide


8. To identify Annual Conference venues for 2021 and 2022

30/06/2020 Conference and Seminar

Organiser

9. To proactively engage with the

Cabinet Office to seek effective resolution to the ongoing issues

in respect of the administration

of fees and charges

30/06/2020 Deputy Chief

Executive

10. To further review the

Association’s management and administrative arrangements to

provide for effective succession planning and business

continuity

30/06/2020 Chief Executive

11. To review the provision of IT across the organisation to

ensure systems are fit for

30/09/2020 Executive Director




purpose and relevant (Resources)

12. To further review the AEA

website to ensure it continues to provide members with ready

access to information and acts

as an effective communications tool for the Association

generally

30/09/2020 Executive

Director (Resources)

13. To review and update the

Association’s Policy Framework and positions on key electoral

matters

30/09/2020 Policy Manager

14. To support the ongoing development of an

apprenticeship standard for electoral services

30/09/2020 Education and Development

Manager

15. To seek the accreditation of the AEA as a training provider for

the apprenticeship standard for

electoral services when it is developed


Manager

16. To develop resources to support members where currently such





resources are not available through, e.g. the Electoral

Commission

Manager

17. To further review the

Association’s training function

to ensure it remains relevant, financial results are optimised

and training delivery methods, including online, are

investigated

30/06/2020 Deputy Chief

Executive

18. To work with key stakeholders

in actively encouraging Government to enact, at least

in part, the recommendations

made by the Law Commissions


19. To consider whether to cost of

Annual Conference should be maintained at the rates for

2020 and 2021, including the 25% reduction

30/06/2021 Management

Team

20. To consider whether

membership fees should be increased

30/06/2021 Management

Team




21. Pursue further development opportunities for the

Association, as appropriate


22. Work with the Cabinet Office

and the Scottish and Welsh

Governments to ensure a co-ordinated and coherent

approach to the introduction of new or revised approaches to

elections, electoral registration and referendums as a result of

initiatives by other Government departments


23. To undertake a comprehensive

review of the Qualification including methods of

assessment, delivery, relationship to national

standards, development opportunities, structural

matters and administrative arrangements

30/09/2022 Chair –

Qualifications Board

24. To review the implementation of the scheme of continuing

professional development for

30/09/2022 Chair – Qualifications




members of the Association Board


The Association of Electoral

Administrators

Policy Positions

Updated: 16 September 2019

Adopted by the AEA Board: 25 September 2019

Agenda Item No. 10

(Item 10: AEA Policy Positions)


Administrators

Page 2 of 21

Our position in relation to numerous policies is outlined in this document,

broken down into three sections:

• Elections

• Electoral Registration

• Other issues

Key messages and policy statements

Question AEA policy position

1. Elections

Should voting be a

legal obligation?

This is a matter for the UK Parliament and devolved

administrations to determine.

There are many advantages and disadvantages

identified by organisations such as those referenced

below. If the UK Government were to introduce

compulsory voting, we would expect consideration

to be given to issues raised in reports such as:

▪ Electoral Commission – Compulsory Voting

Around the World

▪ House of Commons Briefing Paper –

Compulsory Voting

▪ IDEA – Compulsory Voting

▪ Political Studies Association – Beyond

Turnout: The Consequences of Compulsory

Voting

Should voters be

able to cast their

vote online?

We believe that using IT for voting should be

considered, but only utilised when the system(s)

can be shown to deliver safe and secure results,

deliver improvements on current paper-based

systems, be cost-effective and enhance public

confidence and accessibility.



below. If the UK Government were to introduce

voting online, we would expect consideration to be

given to the following types of reports, to

experiences from other countries and from


https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/electoral_commission_pdf_file/0020/16157/ECCompVotingfinal_22225-16484__E__N__S__W__.pdf

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/electoral_commission_pdf_file/0020/16157/ECCompVotingfinal_22225-16484__E__N__S__W__.pdf

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN00954/SN00954.pdf


https://www.idea.int/data-tools/data/voter-turnout/compulsory-voting

https://www.psa.ac.uk/insight-plus/beyond-turnout-consequences-compulsory-voting




Administrators

Page 3 of 21

conducting further UK pilots to build on those

carried out in 2007:

▪ Dr N Ben Fairweather & Professor Simon

Rogerson Centre for Computing and Social

Responsibility School of Computing De

Montfort University, Leicester –

Implementation of e-voting in the UK –

technical issues

▪ House of Commons: Speaker's Commission

on Digital Democracy: meeting on electronic

voting

▪ IDEA – Introducing Electronic Voting –

essential considerations

▪ Electoral Commission

- Official report on the electoral pilot at

Swindon elections

- Official report on electronic voting and

counting pilot at South Bucks elections

▪ Electoral Reform Society

Should votes be

counted

electronically?

We believe that using IT to count votes should be

considered, but only utilised when the system(s)

can be shown to deliver safe and secure results,

improvements on current paper-based systems, be

cost-effective and has public confidence.


identified by organisations such as those referenced below. If the UK Government were to introduce

electronic counting, we would expect them to

consider the following types of reports as well as

recent experiences of electronic counting in London

and Scotland:


- The May 2016 Mayor of London and

London Assembly elections – Report on

the administration of the Greater London

Authority elections held on 5 May 2016

- Electronic counting May 2007 electoral

pilot schemes


https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/99553/Implementation-of-e-voting-in-the-UK-technical-issues.pdf






https://www.parliament.uk/business/commons/the-speaker/speakers-commission-on-digital-democracy/ddc-news/electronic-voting-meeting-/



https://www.idea.int/publications/catalogue/introducing-electronic-voting-essential-considerations

https://www.idea.int/publications/catalogue/introducing-electronic-voting-essential-considerations

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/journalist/electoral-commission-media-centre/news-releases-reviews-and-research/official-report-on-the-electoral-pilot-at-swindon-elections-published

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/journalist/electoral-commission-media-centre/news-releases-reviews-and-research/official-report-on-the-electoral-pilot-at-swindon-elections-published

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/journalist/electoral-commission-media-centre/news-releases-reviews-and-research/official-report-on-electronic-voting-and-counting-pilot-at-south-bucks-elections-published

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/journalist/electoral-commission-media-centre/news-releases-reviews-and-research/official-report-on-electronic-voting-and-counting-pilot-at-south-bucks-elections-published

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/why-cant-we-vote-online/

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/214913/2016-London-election-report.pdf




https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/electoral_commission_pdf_file/0009/13212/Sheffieldstatutoryevaluationreport_27185-20105__E__N__S__W__.pdf

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/electoral_commission_pdf_file/0009/13212/Sheffieldstatutoryevaluationreport_27185-20105__E__N__S__W__.pdf


Administrators

Page 4 of 21

- Official report on electronic counting pilot

at Stratford and Warwick elections

- Official report on electronic counting pilot

at Dover elections

- Official report on electronic voting and

counting pilot at South Bucks elections

▪ Counting the Vote Report of the London Assembly’s Elections Review Committee –

Elections Review Committee December 2007

Should all-postal

ballots be

permitted?

We understand the positive and negative

implications of all-postal ballots and are neither

supportive of the principle or against it.

We support the principles of full and proper

evaluation to enhance public confidence and accessibility in electoral systems to ensure, in the

event of this approach being taken, that all-postal

ballots are deliverable and do not add unnecessary

bureaucracy, cost and risk.



below. If the UK Government were to introduce all-

postal ballots, we would expect them to consider

the following types of reports, including the

experiences of the 2017 pilots in Tower Hamlets

and Slough pilots as well as conducting further

pilots:

▪ House of Commons Library Briefing Paper –

Postal Voting

▪ House of Commons Library – All Postal Voting

▪ House of Commons ODPM: Housing, Planning,

Local Government and the Regions Committee –

Postal Voting

▪ Cabinet Office – Electoral Integrity Project -

Local Elections 2018 – Evaluation

▪ Democratic Audit UK – Postal Voting and

Electoral Fraud


- May 2018 voter identification pilot

schemes


http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/electoral_commission_pdf_file/0007/16189/Wawick_StratfordFinal-310707_27218-20134__E__N__S__W__.pdf

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/electoral_commission_pdf_file/0007/16189/Wawick_StratfordFinal-310707_27218-20134__E__N__S__W__.pdf

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/electoral_commission_pdf_file/0015/13209/Doverstatutoryevaluationreport_27182-20102__E__N__S__W__.pdf

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/electoral_commission_pdf_file/0015/13209/Doverstatutoryevaluationreport_27182-20102__E__N__S__W__.pdf

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/electoral_commission_pdf_file/0017/16190/SouthBucksFinal_27220-20135__E__N__S__W__.pdf

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/electoral_commission_pdf_file/0017/16190/SouthBucksFinal_27220-20135__E__N__S__W__.pdf

https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/gla_migrate_files_destination/archives/assembly-reports-general-counting-the-vote.pdf



http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7419/CBP-7419.pdf

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7419/CBP-7419.pdf


https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmodpm/400/400.pdf



https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/electoral-integrity-project-local-elections-2018-evaluation

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/electoral-integrity-project-local-elections-2018-evaluation

http://www.democraticaudit.com/2010/05/01/postal-voting-and-electoral-fraud/

http://www.democraticaudit.com/2010/05/01/postal-voting-and-electoral-fraud/

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/electoral-fraud/voter-identification-pilot-schemes

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/electoral-fraud/voter-identification-pilot-schemes


Administrators

Page 5 of 21

- Report on all-postal voting pilot scheme:

Hesket ward, Eden, Cumbria

- Report on all-postal voting pilot scheme:

Porthleven ward, Kerrier, Cornwall

Should convicted

prisoners be

entitled to vote?

It is a matter for the UK Parliament and devolved

administrations to determine if the franchise should

be extended to include prisoners. AEA members will

administer the process according to the legislation

in force.

However, if this change were to be introduced,

consideration to the administration of votes in a

safe, secure and secret manner would be key.

Should the voting

age be reduced?


administrations to determine any change to the

existing franchise. AEA members will administer the

process according to the legislation in force.

However, devolution in Scotland and proposed

changes in Wales will clearly have an impact and

we have concerns regarding inconsistencies across

the UK. We believe the UK Government should take a more holistic approach to democratic processes

to prevent the voting system from becoming more

complex to understand and administer.



below. If the UK Government were to reduce the

voting age, we would expect them to consider the

types of issues referenced in the following:

▪ Electoral Commission – Scottish Elections

(Reduction of Voting Age) Bill

▪ Scottish Government – Scottish Elections

(Reduction of Voting Age) Bill

▪ Young Citizens – Lowering the voting age to

16

▪ Political Studies Association – Beyond the

Youth Citizenship Commission: Young People

and Politics


https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/journalist/electoral-commission-media-centre/news-releases-reviews-and-research/electoral-commission-report-on-all-postal-voting-pilot-scheme-published

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/journalist/electoral-commission-media-centre/news-releases-reviews-and-research/electoral-commission-report-on-all-postal-voting-pilot-scheme-published

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/journalist/electoral-commission-media-centre/news-releases-reviews-and-research/first-electoral-commission-report-on-all-postal-voting-pilot-scheme-published

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/journalist/electoral-commission-media-centre/news-releases-reviews-and-research/first-electoral-commission-report-on-all-postal-voting-pilot-scheme-published

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/189856/Scottish-Elections-Reduction-of-Voting-Age-Bill-Stage-1-Debate-Briefing.pdf

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/189856/Scottish-Elections-Reduction-of-Voting-Age-Bill-Stage-1-Debate-Briefing.pdf

http://www.parliament.scot/S4_Bills/Scottish%20Elections%20(Reduction%20of%20Voting%20Age)%20Bill/b66s4-introd-en.pdf

http://www.parliament.scot/S4_Bills/Scottish%20Elections%20(Reduction%20of%20Voting%20Age)%20Bill/b66s4-introd-en.pdf

https://www.youngcitizens.org/lowering-the-voting-age-to-16

https://www.youngcitizens.org/lowering-the-voting-age-to-16

https://www.psa.ac.uk/sites/default/files/PSA%20Beyond%20the%20YCC%20FINAL_0.pdf




Administrators

Page 6 of 21

What is the AEA’s

position on electors

being able to vote

more than once at

local government

elections?


administrations to determine franchises and voting

entitlement. However, we support the principles of

full and proper evaluation to enhance public

confidence and accessibility in electoral systems.

Any change should be deliverable and not add

unnecessary bureaucracy, cost or risk.

The UK voting system is largely based on trust.

With individuals able to register more than once

where they can demonstrate residence, there is a

risk of electors voting more than once when not

entitled to. In our 2017 post-election report, we

recommended that legislation should be amended

to clearly identify what constitutes a valid second

registration.

We also believe that the administrative burden of

any changes to ensure that electors could not vote

more than once would need extensive

consideration.

Does the AEA think

that elections are

secure from fraud?

The UK voting system is largely based on trust so is

potentially vulnerable to electoral fraud. It is widely

recognised that there is no evidence of widespread

issues, and that any form of electoral fraud is

unacceptable. We and our members are aware of

potential weaknesses in current systems that could

make fraud possible.

We broadly welcomed the findings of the Rt Hon

Lord Eric Pickles Electoral Fraud Review in 2015

and the recommendations in his report “Securing

the ballot: review into electoral fraud”. We will

continue to work closely with key stakeholders in

implementing the report’s recommendations and

addressing issues of perceived systemic

weaknesses.

Should electors be

required to show ID

in polling stations?

We understand the positive and negative

implications of Voter ID at polling stations and are

neither supportive of the principle or against it.

We have welcomed Voter ID pilots, to enable full

and proper evaluation of proposed systems. We

remain concerned that further consideration needs

to be given to ensure that any change is


https://www.aea-elections.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/aea-post-election-report-mayjune-2017.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/securing-the-ballot-review-into-electoral-fraud

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/securing-the-ballot-review-into-electoral-fraud


Administrators

Page 7 of 21

deliverable, does not add unnecessarily to

bureaucracy, costs and risk, lead to the

disenfranchisement of certain groups, and does not

negatively impact those who wish to vote.

If the UK Government introduces Voter ID there

must be sufficient lead-in time for legislation,

administrative planning, delivery and voter education. This will be essential for a smooth

transition.

We would also advise caution about the timing of

any change, to ensure that any new system is

robust enough to withstand the demands of a high

turnout poll.

Should there be a national ID card

which could be used

as ID to vote?

Should the UK Government determine that photographic ID is necessary in order to vote, a

national ID card would offer obvious benefits to

electoral processes.

We appreciate the cost of such an implementation

and believe that local authorities could provide an

alternative option, e.g. a locally produced ID. Any

national or local ID card scheme would require

sufficient lead-in time for legislation, administrative

planning and delivery; this would be essential for a

smooth transition. Any such scheme would also

need to be fully funded.

Should all citizens,

regardless of

nationality, be

entitled to vote in

the UK?


administrations to determine the franchise. AEA

members will administer the process according to

the legislation in force.

However, exiting the EU, devolution and proposed

changes in devolved nations around residency-

based registration will clearly be a factor. We have concerns regarding inconsistency across the UK and

voter confusion at combined polls.

We believe that the UK Government needs to take

a more holistic approach to democratic processes

to avoid introducing additional risks and further

fracturing the voting system.



Administrators

Page 8 of 21

Should voting at

places other than

traditional polling

stations be

permitted?

We believe that polling places should be accessible,

suitable for all eligible electors and be appropriate

for them to cast their votes in secret. It must be

noted that whilst legislation provides for publicly

funded premises, including local authority schools,

to be made available free of charge to Returning

Officers, custodians are often reluctant to do so –

for a variety of legitimate reasons.

The key priority is to ensure that electors who have

specific access requirements can vote unaided,

which may mean that current polling stations are

not suitable.

Should voting take

place at weekends?

Our general view is that polling day should remain

a weekday. We have no strong view of the need for polling to take place on a Thursday. We consider

that significant challenges associated with weekend

voting include:

▪ Resources – increased costs for staff and

venue hire;

▪ Polling station venues – availability;

▪ Security – increased costs;

▪ Administration of elections – availability of

sufficient polling station and count staff, ICT

access, and count venues.

As an alternative to weekend voting, some

democracies make polling day a national public

holiday.

We support full and proper evaluation to enhance

public confidence and accessibility in our electoral

system. In the event of change it must be

deliverable and not add unnecessarily to

bureaucracy, costs and risk.

Should voters who

have specific needs

be able to vote at

any polling station

in the

constituency/local

government area?

We believe that all electors should be able to cast

their votes as easily as possible, securely and

independently. However, we also recognise the

challenges electoral administrators face in meeting

the needs of all electors. We will continue to work

with key stakeholders in addressing such issues.



Administrators

Page 9 of 21

Should the UK Government introduce changes to

allow facilities for voters who have specific needs to

vote at any polling station in the constituency/local

government area, there would be significant legal

and administrative challenges to ensure the ballot

is safe, secure and not open to fraud.

Is the current

registration,

election and voting

process deeply

rooted in the 19th

century and based

on out-of-date

assumptions and

lifestyles?

Yes.

Electoral administrators are increasingly aware of

the public’s frustrations with what is often viewed

as an outdated and bureaucratic system.

The introduction of Individual Electoral Registration

in 2014 allowed potential electors to apply to

register online and has been a great success, but

many other processes remain paper based, often

with good reason.

We have welcomed the Government’s commitment

to review elements of the electoral process but

believe the time has come for them to take a

comprehensive review of all registration and

election processes.

In our 2019 statement to the Minister we made the

following recommendation:

2019-12: We urge the UK Government to

facilitate a wider understanding of the

pressures being faced both by electoral

administrators and the wider electoral community, ensuring that all stakeholders

understand that those tasked with

administering successful elections do not

have limitless capacity.

Why are pencils and

not pens used in polling booths for

voters to cast their

vote?

The use of a pen or pencil to complete a ballot

paper is not specified in legislation. In the UK, pencils are traditionally used to mark ballot papers

and are made available in polling stations for voters

to use.

Pencils are used for both historic and practical

reasons. Ink pens may dry out or spill; ink may

cause some transfer of the mark the voter has

made when they fold the ballot paper, potentially

leading to their vote being rejected if, for example,


https://www.aea-elections.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/aea-post-election-report-2019.pdf


Administrators

Page 10 of 21

it looks like they have voted for more candidates

than they are entitled to.

There is nothing to stop a voter from using a pen to

mark their vote. There is no legal requirement for

ballot papers to be marked with a pencil.

Does the complexity of the current

system support the

effective delivery of

electoral services to

voters?

No. There are currently over 75 separate pieces of legislation relevant to elections. This makes the

administration of electoral processes inefficient and

introduces significant risk.

We believe that the point where consolidating

legislation to solve the problems inherent in the

electoral process has passed. We need ‘root and

branch’ reform and rewritten legislation.

We welcomed the Law Commission’s work towards

simplifying electoral legislation across the UK in a

single Electoral Administration Act.

We consider effecting the Law Commission’s

recommendations a priority policy matter.

We are disappointed to learn from the Cabinet Office that there is unlikely to be a single Electoral

Administration Act in the near future. Work had

started, with the Law Commission drafting

legislation on behalf of the Cabinet Office, but

progress has been slower than anticipated. The Law

Commission and the Cabinet Office are continuing

to look at ways to implement legislative change.

We have recommended on a number of occasions,

most recently in our 2019 statement, that:

2019-6: The UK Government should consider

and progress the Law Commission

recommendations as a matter of urgency including addressing the issues raised in our

response to the inquiry by the Public

Administration and Constitutional Affairs

Committee.

In the meantime, we will continue to press for

changes in secondary legislation to address current

areas of concern.




Administrators

Page 11 of 21

What is the AEA’s

view on funding for

elections/electoral

registration?

Funding for electoral services and specific elections

and referendums is confused. There is central

funding in the form of ‘fees and charges’ for UK-

wide elections on an election-by-election basis. In

addition, there is central funding for any additional

registration costs incurred as a result of introducing

Individual Electoral Registration (IER).

We have significant concerns about funding and

have called on numerous occasions, most recently

in our 2019 statement, for:

2019-9: A comprehensive review of the

fees and charges structure is urgently

needed to ensure sufficient funding is

provided and to reduce the perceived

bureaucracy when claims need to be

settled.

2019-10: Maximum Recoverable Amounts,

advances and guidance should be made

available prior to the Notice of

Election/Referendum being published before any national poll, whether scheduled

or unscheduled.

2019-11: We urge the UK Government to

introduce a mechanism where the full costs

of registration should be reimbursed to the

relevant local authority where it can be

demonstrated that those costs were

incurred because of a national electoral

event.

In our 2017 report and 2018 Ministerial letter, we

highlighted that a full and thorough review of

electoral services funding should be undertaken as

a matter of urgency, to ensure that:

• All costs properly incurred in the

administration of elections, including electoral

registration costs directly attributable to the

election, are reimbursed to Returning Officers

and their employing local authorities; and

• All costs properly incurred in delivering

electoral registration are automatically



https://www.aea-elections.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/letter-to-minister-13-june-18.pdf


Administrators

Page 12 of 21

provided to local authorities without the need

to revert to the justification led bidding

process.

Future registration funding is currently unclear and

there are numerous issues around funding of

national elections and referendums. We will

continue to work with Government on these issues and hope that future funding arrangements will

benefit from these discussions.

Who decides on the

location of polling

stations and what

changes to the

process would the

AEA like to see?

Legislation currently requires local authorities to

review UK Parliamentary polling districts and polling

places every five years. However, Returning

Officers are responsible for the provision of polling

stations and their staffing and equipment under

relevant election rules.

We believe that the selection of polling places

should be the responsibility of Returning Officers,

who act independently, rather than local

authorities. This would put the interest of voters at

the centre of the issue and give Returning Officers

more flexibility to insist on providing accessible

polling stations.



Administrators

Page 13 of 21

2. Electoral Registration

Should registering

to vote be a legal

obligation?


administrations to determine. To help our members

deliver a safe and secure electoral system, we

believe that registering to vote should be a legal

obligation, with simpler forms of enforcement

available to EROs.

Current legislation requires voters to provide

accurate information to EROs, which effectively

means that if qualified and resident, individuals are

required to register to vote.

Legislation also makes provision for civil penalties

in the case of failing to complete an invitation to

register and prosecution through the courts for failure to respond to a Household Enquiry Form.

However, very few EROs take enforcement action

due to the complex and costly legislative process

which has to be funded by the local authority.

Should

students/people with second homes

be allowed to

continue to register

at two addresses?

The UK voting system is largely based on trust.

With individuals able to register more than once where they can demonstrate residence, there is a

risk of electors voting more than once when they

are not entitled to. If the system were to change,

one option would be for electors eligible to register

at more than one address to indicate which address

they wish to use their vote at as part of their initial

application. This would be kept on record and votes

issued accordingly at appropriate elections.

We would also highlight the huge resource required

to invite students to register with no clear option

for them to indicate that they do not wish to

register at their term-time address. We believe it should be clearer to students, and to other voters

with two eligible addresses, that they have a choice

about whether to register at a second address.


administrations to determine how the electoral

system should be administered. However, we have

previously recommended that legislation should

clearly identify what constitutes a valid second

registration.



Administrators

Page 14 of 21

Should the 15-year

rule for overseas

electors be

removed?

It is a matter for the UK Parliament to determine

the franchise for UK Parliamentary elections. AEA

members will administer the process according to

the legislation in force.

However, if the Government introduced this change

in line with current rules, the administration of the

system would effectively be unworkable due to limitations of records held by EROs. The

administration of overseas elector applications

needs to be carefully considered when drafting any

new legislation, with sufficient lead-in time allowed

for the introduction of any changes.

We would also urge that more thought is given to

educating overseas electors about different ways to

cast their ballot. A reliance on postal votes can

lead to overseas electors being disenfranchised as a

result of receiving ballot papers too late to return to

be counted. In our 2019 statement to the Minister

we made the following recommendation:

2019-5: We strongly urge the UK Government to consider the way in which overseas

electors can cast their votes.

Should there be

automatic

registration via

national data sources as people

move address i.e.

public utilities data?

Automatic registration, whereby eligible citizens

who interact with government agencies are

registered to vote without making an application, is

a matter for UK Parliament and the devolved

administrations to determine.

As a general point, we believe that EROs should

have full access to any official records that will help

them maintain a complete and accurate electoral

register. Full and proper evaluation would be

required to ensure public confidence. Any proposed

changes would need to be deliverable and avoid

any unnecessary bureaucracy, cost and risk.

A 2016 UK Parliament debate on the topic outlined

the advantages and disadvantages, also identified

by organisations such as those referenced below. If

the UK Government and/or the devolved

administrations were to introduce automatic registration, we would expect them to consider the

following types of reports:



https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2016-0131


Administrators

Page 15 of 21

▪ Getting the ‘missing millions’ on to the

electoral register: A vision for voter

registration reform in the UK, Bite the Ballot

and Dr Toby James, Clear View Research,

April 2016

▪ It's time to talk about automatic voter

registration, Electoral Reform Society, Josiah

Mortimer, 7 June 2016

Should there be a

single electronic

register for the UK?


administration to determine whether a national

electoral register would be appropriate but if it

were, there would be obvious and clear benefits to

electoral processes.

A House of Commons library summary states: “A centralised registration system, including software

and administration, is likely to be difficult and

costly to develop. Central registration was

attempted some years ago, the CORE system, but

this was abandoned. The Labour Government had

attempted to create a locally compiled but centrally

held electoral registration database in 2005, but

the project was abandoned by the Coalition

Government in 2011. The provisions relating to

CORE in the Electoral Administration Act 2006 and

Political Parties and Elections Act 2009 were

repealed by the Electoral Registration and

Administration Act 2013.

There have been concerns about personal data

being collected centrally; the ONS conducted some

research into public attitudes towards providing

population statistics and the use of administrative

data in 2014. It found that people generally did not

object to data being held by other government

departments being shared but there were

objections about privacy and security.”

We would expect for there to be a comprehensive

study of the mechanics of creating a single register

for the UK before any decision is made.


http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/80808/



https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/its-time-to-talk-about-automatic-voter-registration/

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/its-time-to-talk-about-automatic-voter-registration/

https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2016-0131


Administrators

Page 16 of 21

Should the full

electoral register be

available for sale to

Credit Agencies and

other statutory

bodies?

We believe that current regulations governing

access and supply of the electoral register are

flawed and should be reviewed, including being

clear about exactly what the electoral register is

for. We are not opposed to licensed organisations

accessing such data for credit and security checks,

but we do not agree with those organisations then being permitted to use that information, compiled

at public cost, for commercial purposes. We firmly

maintain that the edited register should be

abolished, and no elector details should be

available for sale to third parties.

Should there be two

versions of the register – full and

edited?

We believe that the electoral register should be

compiled for electoral and other limited purposes only (i.e. credit and security checks). We do not

support the sale of personal data. Access to the

electoral register should be strictly prescribed and

controlled, and the edited register dispensed with.



Administrators

Page 17 of 21

3. Other issues

What is the AEA’s

view on the timing

of the count at UK

Parliamentary

General Elections?

Where combined with another poll, the requirement

to commence the counting of votes at a UK

Parliamentary election within four hours of the

close of poll should be removed.

Does the AEA support the

Boundary

Commission

proposals to reduce

the number of MPs

which will increase

the number of

Parliamentary cross

boundaries?

It is a matter for the UK Parliament to determine the UK parliamentary boundaries and required

number of MPs.

However, we have concerns about the

administrative complexities which would result from

the significant increase in the proposed number of

cross boundary constituencies. We are also

concerned that administrators will not have

sufficient time to make arrangements for

administering elections on new boundaries should

an early UK Parliamentary general election take

place.

Should ROs/EROs

be permitted to trial

reforms in different

ways to better meet

the needs of

different

communities, and

should local authorities be able

to choose their

voting system?


administrations to determine. Full and proper

evaluation would be required to ensure public

confidence in any proposed changes, which would

need to be deliverable and avoid any unnecessary

bureaucracy, cost and risk.

We have concerns that any further inconsistency of

approach between different elections, across the UK and neighbouring local authority areas, could

lead to voter confusion and increased apathy. As

detailed in our response to the Welsh Government

White Paper Reforming Local Government Resilient

and Renewed (April 2017) we have reservations

about individual ROs and EROs adopting whichever

approach they believe is best for their

community/location.

Should Returning

Officers be entitled

to personal fees?

We believe that Returning Officers, who are

independent of their employing local authorities,

should be entitled to receive a personal fee at a

rate that appropriately reflects the complexity and

position of the role, the associated serious personal

liabilities and additional workload.


https://www.aea-elections.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/aea-resp-welsh-gov-white-paper-reforming-local-government-resilient-and-renewed-070417.pdf




Administrators

Page 18 of 21

Is the current cycle

of elections correct?


administrations to determine but we can see some

benefits to the cycle of all elections being reviewed.

Electoral cycles vary depending on election type

across four or five year terms. This creates

significant combinations of polls in certain years. If

all electoral cycles were changed to five years, this would in theory reduce the number of combined

polls, unless an unscheduled UK Parliamentary

general election was held.

What should the

timescales be for

introducing new

legislation?

Unless there are exceptional and unavoidable

circumstances, we believe that legislation should be

in place six months prior to any election or

referendum, and electoral registration canvass. For elections and referendums, the six months should

run prior to the publication of the notice of

election/referendum.

Does the AEA

support the Law

Commission recommendations

to bring forward a

single Electoral

Administration Act?

We consider effecting the Law Commission’s

recommendations a priority policy matter.

A single Electoral Administration Act should be

brought forward to simplify electoral legislation.


of 21

Summary of key electoral events and milestones: 2020 - 2024

Date Event Key issues / comments Extent

31 January

2020

Date at which the next UK Parliamentary polling districts

and polling places review must be completed by

UK

May 2020 Police and Crime Commission elections E&W

Local government elections including parish, some

Mayoral and Combined Authority Mayoral elections

England

London Assembly elections London

Mayor of London elections London

July 2020 Canvass Reform GB

May 2021 Scottish Parliamentary elections – 5-year cycle (Scottish

Elections (Dates) Act 2016)

Scotland

National Assembly for Wales elections – 5-year cycle

(Wales Act 2014) Wales

Northern Ireland Assembly elections – 5-year cycle

(Northern Ireland Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2014)

Northern

Ireland

Local government elections including County Council,

some Mayoral and Combined Authority Mayoral elections

England


of 21

Date Event Key issues / comments Extent

May 2022 UK Parliamentary general election (possibly based on

new parliamentary boundaries subject to Parliamentary

approval)

Possible introduction of

Voter ID subject to

legislation. Concerns of

significant voter

confusion if both Voter ID

and new Parliamentary

boundaries including new

constituency/polling

places for voters

introduced at the same

election for the first time

UK

Local government elections including parish and some

Mayoral and Combined Authority Mayoral elections

England

Local government elections 5-year term from 2017 to

avoid combination with

Scottish Parliament

Scotland

Local government elections, including community

councils

5-year term from 2017 to

avoid combination with

NAW

Wales

May 2023 Local government elections, including parish and some

Mayoral elections England

Local government elections Northern

Ireland


of 21

May 2024 Police and Crime Commission elections E&W

Local government elections including parish and some

Mayoral and Combined Authority Mayoral elections England

London Assembly elections London

Mayor of London elections London

May/June

2024

Possible European Parliamentary Election in the UK –

subject to Brexit negotiations

Europe

(excluding UK?)


The Association of Electoral Administrators

Quarterly update for AEA Branches and

AEA Members 2019 Quarter 4

ELECTIONS

Post-election statement – the AEA will be publishing a post-election statement following the

UK Parliamentary general election (UKPGE) and we aim to send it to the Government in early

February.

Post-election survey – whilst we have received feedback via the reporting button please complete the AEA post-election survey available here. Your responses will help us inform the

statement we are preparing for Government and support ongoing and subsequent discussions

with Government and other key stakeholders.

European Parliamentary election accounts – the deadline for the submission of Returning Officer election expenses to the Election Claims Unit (ECU) has been extended to Tuesday 25

February 2020 due to the UKPGE.

UK Parliamentary general election accounts – must be submitted within 9 months

commencing with the day of the declaration of result – the deadline is by no later than Saturday

12 September 2020.

Electoral Commission reports published – ‘May 2019 elections’ and ‘Inquiry report: the voting registration process for EU citizens resident in the UK for the 2019 European

Parliamentary elections held in the UK’.

AEA post-election report – our statement ‘The Electoral Landscape in 2019’ was published

on 16 September and sent to Government, the Minister, other key stakeholders and several media outlets. It outlines the key issues and concerns following the May polls and is available

here.

ELECTORAL REGISTRATION

Individual Electoral Registration (IER) Justification Led Bids (JLB) – the deadline for

the Cabinet Office to receive justification led bid applications has been extended to Friday 24 January 2020. For an application form and further details contact: cg-

[email protected].

Canvass Reform – the Cabinet Office will send guidance for the Canvass Reform national data

test to all EROs/ESMs early in the New Year. If you would like more information now or have

any questions please email [email protected].

Canvass Reform Final Statement of Policy – the Cabinet Office published its final statement

of policy for reform of the annual canvass together with consultation response documents.

Student registration - the guidance on electoral registration which the Office for Students published last year came into force on 1 August. It can be found here. Information from EROs

will be an important part of identifying cases where providers may be at risk of breaching this condition (or have already breached it). If EROs have evidence of providers failing to cooperate with them on the facilitation of electoral registration the Office for Students (OfS) want to know

about it – please send details to [email protected]. They are particularly interested in cases where unhelpful behavior is systematic and where EROs make clear to

providers the legal and regulatory basis for their requests for information or cooperation and

continue to get an unhelpful response.

The OfS is set up to identify risk and breach of condition and take appropriate action, rather than resolve individual disputes and complaints. Issues raised by EROs would be evidence that

helped us to decide whether to use a regulatory intervention, such as a sanction for breach or a specific condition to ensure the provider acts in a more cooperative way in future. We would be seeking in these cases to ensure the requirements on electoral registration are taken

seriously by the governing body of the provider and appropriate systems are in place.

KEY

IS

SU

ES

INTRODUCTION - This update, issued ahead of the next round of AEA branch meetings, summarises

the key issues that have occurred in the last quarter. Further details are available in the recent monthly member updates for September, October and December which are available here.

Agenda Item No. 11A

(Item 11A: Quarterly Update)

https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/NNT35B9

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/elections-and-referendums/past-elections-and-referendums/european-parliamentary-elections/report-may-2019-european-parliamentary-elections-and-local-elections

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/elections-and-referendums/past-elections-and-referendums/european-parliamentary-elections/inquiry-report-voting-registration-process-eu-citizens-resident-uk-2019-european-parliamentary




mailto:[email protected]



https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/proposals-for-the-reform-of-the-annual-canvass

https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/publications/regulatory-advice-11-guidance-for-providers-about-facilitating-electoral-registration/


https://www.aea-elections.co.uk/aea-communications-information/aea-communication/policy-updates/

LEGISLATION UPDATE The UK Government’s Canvass Reform statutory instrument The Representation of the People (Annual Canvass) (Amendment) Regulations 2019 was debated in Parliament on Thursday 31

October, and signed by the Minister for the Constitution on 4 November. This means the reforms have formally become law in relation to the UK parliamentary register and the local government register in England. Legislation is due to be made by the Welsh and Scottish Governments in relation

to the local government registers in the devolved nations in mid-January.

Draft Legislation

• Scottish Government: Referendum Scotland Bill

• Scottish Government: Scottish Elections (Franchise and Representation) Bill

• Overseas Electors Bill

• Representation of the People (Annual Canvass) (Amendment) (Wales) Regulation 2019 (Draft

SI)

• Scottish Elections Reform Bill

New Legislation

• The Representation of the People (Annual Canvass) (Amendment) Regulations 2019 – Canvass

Reform legislation for England.

• The Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers’ Charges) Order 2019

• The Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers’ Charges) (Amendment) Order 2019

• The Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers’ Accounts) Regulations 2019

• Representation of the People: The Greater London Authority Elections (Amendment) Rules 2019

(SI re home address on ballot papers at GLA elections)

• European Parliamentary Elections Etc. (Repeal, Revocation, Amendment and Saving Provisions) (United Kingdom and Gibraltar) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2019 has now been made.

The Regulations provide for legislation governing European Parliamentary (EP) elections to remain in place until 31 December 2020 in order to enable the necessary processes following the

EP poll on 23 May 2019 to be completed.

FORMAL CONSULTATIONS • Welsh Government – Changes to the executive governance arrangements in principal councils

(local authorities). Deadline for responses 27 February 2020.

Responded to:

• Call for views on the Scottish Elections (Reform) Bill. AEA response here.

• Electoral Commission: Design of Canvass Reform Communications. AEA response here.

• ICO consultation on the draft framework code of practice for the use of personal data in political

campaigning. AEA response available here.

• Call for Evidence – House of Lords Select Committee on the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011.

AEA response available here.

• Call for views on the Scottish Elections (Franchise and Representation) Bill. AEA response

available here.

• Call for views on the Scottish Elections (Franchise and Representation) Bill Financial

Memorandum. AEA response available here.

• Call for Evidence – House of Lords Select Committee on the Electoral Registration and

Administration Act 2013. AEA response available here.

THINGS TO LOOK OUT FOR AEA Annual Conference 2020 – ‘Delivering Change’ will be in Blackpool from Sunday 2 February to Wednesday 5 February. Bookings and further details are available here


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2019/1451/contents/made


https://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/Bills/111844.aspx


https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/overseaselectors.html




http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2019/1470/signature/made

https://www.aea-elections.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/ro-accounts-regs.pdf




https://gov.wales/changes-executive-governance-arrangements-principal-councils-local-authorities

https://gov.wales/changes-executive-governance-arrangements-principal-councils-local-authorities

https://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/CurrentCommittees/112963.aspx

https://www.aea-elections.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/aea-response-call-for-views-on-scottish-elections-reform-bill.pdf

https://www.aea-elections.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/AEA-response-to-the-design-of-Canvass-Reform-Communications-final.pdf

https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/ico-and-stakeholder-consultations/ico-consultation-on-the-draft-framework-code-of-practice-for-the-use-of-personal-data-in-political-campaigning/

https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/ico-and-stakeholder-consultations/ico-consultation-on-the-draft-framework-code-of-practice-for-the-use-of-personal-data-in-political-campaigning/

https://www.aea-elections.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/aea-response-ico-code-use-of-personal-data-political-campaigning-oct-2019.pdf

https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/lords-select/constitution-committee/news-parliament-2017/ftpa-call-for-evidence/

https://www.aea-elections.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/aea-response-call-for-evidence-fixed-term-parliaments-act-2011-sept-2019.pdf


https://www.aea-elections.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/aea-resp-scottish-elections-fr-bill-views.pdf



https://www.aea-elections.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/aea-resp-scottish-elections-fr-bill-finmemo-views.pdf

https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/lords-select/electoral-registration-act-2013-committee/news-parliament-2017/call-for-ev/

https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/lords-select/electoral-registration-act-2013-committee/news-parliament-2017/call-for-ev/

https://www.aea-elections.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/aea-response-call-for-evidence-era2013.pdf

https://www.aea-elections.co.uk/conference-seminar/annual-conference/annual-conference-2020-delivering-change/

9. MONTHLY REMINDER LIST

The monthly reminder list of key dates and activities can be viewed here.

10. LOCAL AUTHORITY CONTACT LIST Available here.

AEA MEETINGS: Executive Directors – 23 October, 13 and 20 November

Training Board – 24 October

AEA Board – 25 September

Events Officer Group – 26 September

Management Team – 4 September

Canvass Reform Focus Day – 9 September

AEA Knowledge Bank

Local Authority contact list

Monthly reminder list Members monthly update Arena

Registration dates table is

available here for 2020

England and Wales flowchart available here for

2020

Scottish flowchart available here

for 2020

AEA training courses Formal consultation

responses

Electoral Registration

• Publication of the revised register

• Sale of the electoral register: fees calculation – guidance document calculation

spreadsheet

• Appointment and responsibilities of statutory officers involved in the electoral process

• Electoral Registration Officer – Resources and Funding

Elections

• Returning Officer Reservation of Powers (England and Wales)

• December by-elections and the implications to registration

• Appointment and responsibilities of statutory officers involved in the electoral process

AEA Policy Positions

• AEA Policy Positions

• Sale of the Register of Electors


http://www.aea-elections.co.uk/aea-communications-information/aea-communication/notice-board/

https://www.aea-elections.co.uk/local-authority-contact-list/

https://www.aea-elections.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/board-min-250919.pdf

https://www.aea-elections.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Canvass-Reform-Focus-Day-Report.pdf

https://www.aea-elections.co.uk/aea-communications-information/aea-communication/notice-board/

http://www.aea-elections.co.uk/aea-communications-information/aea-communication/notice-board/

http://www.aea-elections.co.uk/aea-communications-information/aea-communication/policy-updates/

https://www.aea-elections.co.uk/aea-communications-information/aea-communication/arena/

https://www.aea-elections.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Registration-dates-2020-draft-v2.docx

https://www.aea-elections.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Rolling-Registration-Flow-Charts-2020-E-W.pdf

https://www.aea-elections.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Rolling-Registration-Flow-Charts-2020-Scotland.pdf

https://www.aea-elections.co.uk/training-qualifications/training-courses/course-details/




https://www.aea-elections.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/guidance-project-publication-of-the-revised-register-september-2019.pdf

https://www.aea-elections.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Guidance-Project-Sale-of-electoral-register-fees-and-working-calculation.pdf

https://www.aea-elections.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Guidance-Project-Sale-of-electoral-register-fees-calculator.xlsx

https://www.aea-elections.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Guidance-Project-Sale-of-electoral-register-fees-calculator.xlsx

https://www.aea-elections.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/guidance-project-statutory-officers-updated-july-2019.pdf

https://www.aea-elections.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/guidance-project-ERO-resources-and-funding-updated-january-2018.pdf

https://www.aea-elections.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/aea-member-support-reservation-of-ro-powers.pdf

https://www.aea-elections.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/dec-by-election-canvass-timetable-calculations-eng-wa-sco-dec-2019.xlsx

https://www.aea-elections.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/guidance-project-statutory-officers-updated-july-2019.pdf

https://www.aea-elections.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/aea-policy-positions-2019.pdf

https://www.aea-elections.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/sale-of-register-fees-aea-policy.pdf

the association of electoral administrators · bloxham, elly cook, heather evans, katherine...

Documents