The
Panel received a report, which provided an update on the resident
ballot undertaken on the Love Lane estate as part of the High Road
West Regeneration scheme. It was noted that the ballot took place
from 13 August to 6th September. The GLA stipulated that
the ballot was administered by an independent body, the Council
appointed Civica Election Services (CES) to this role. CES had
managed over 90% of resident ballots undertaken in London. The
results of the ballot were that 55.7% voted in favour of the
proposals, with a turnout of 69.4%. CES have advised the Council
that they were satisfied that the ballot process was conducted in
accordance with GLA regulations. The following was noted in
discussion of this report:
- A member of
the Panel enquired as to whether he may be able to review the
ballots cast during the election in order to verify concerns around
spoiled ballots etc, given that there
was only a dozen or so ballots in it.
N.B. Clerk’s note – Officers have
subsequently advised that there was only one spoiled ballot and the
margin of votes between yes and no was 23.Officers advised that they were unsure whether this was
permissible and that it may be counter to GDPR regulations.
Officers agreed to ask Civica as to whether it was possible for a
Councillor to review the ballots in some redacted form. (Action: Peter
O’Brien).
- Cllr Ibrahim
suggested that Civica administered the election and that they would
have process in place for tallying up and verifying spoiled
ballots.
- Members of
the Panel commented that they were more concerned with allegations
that the Council had been improperly involved in the process. In
response, Cllr Gordon commented that CES administered the election
and that any questions around the process should be directed to
them. Cllr Gordon advised that as part of the engagement process
for the ballot, officers were instructed to be clear about the
Council’s landlord offer with tenants and be able to answer
questions. Cllr Gordon set out that there was no evidence that
officers had done anything to invalidate ballots or in any way
undermine the result of the ballot. The Panel was advised that
Civica concurred with the Council on this and had clearly advised
that the ballot was run according to the GLA guidance.
- The Panel
commented that encouraging people to take part in the ballot was
fine but that they were concerned about allegations from Defend
Council Housing that officers handled ballot papers or were
involved in the collection process for the ballots in some way. In
response, the Panel was advised that the Council had followed
Civica advice to the letter. Officers advised that there were
categorically no instances of officers collecting unsealed ballot
papers or helping to fill ballot papers
in. Officers advised the Panel that there were four instances where
officers posted sealed ballot papers on behalf of residents at
their request, for example due to mobility issues. It was noted
that this was done as a last resort and was in line with
Civica’s advice.
- Officers advised that they had contacted Civica to request
advice around whether it was permitted to post sealed ballot papers
on a residents’ behalf. Civica had provided advice stating
that this should only be done as a last resort and at the
residents’ insistence. Officers reiterated that what was
being referred to was a very limited number of instances where
sealed ballots in sealed envelopes had been collected from people
with serious mobility issues, and that this was done only as a last
resort upon the resident’s request, not as a proactive
exercise instigated by officers. This was therefore in line with
the guidance provided by Civica. These sealed ballots were
collected by engagement officers who were highly visible and had
been working in the community for a number of years.
- The Panel
commented that collecting sealed ballots was not something that
would be undertaken during other types of election processes.
Councillors commented they were forbidden from collecting ballots
on behalf of residents during a Council election, for
instance.
- The Panel suggested that in hindsight, one side
should not have been the only one who collected sealed ballots and
that a clear process should have been in place for dealing with
this eventuality.
- In response to further questions, officers advised that they
were certain that there were only four instances of sealed ballots
being collected by officers. In response to another question,
officers gave firm assurances that the collection of sealed ballots
did not invalidate the ballot in anyway. Civica had significant
experience in carrying out resident ballots and they were happy
that the result was valid. Officers advised Members that any
concerns about how the ballot was run should be put in writing to
Civica Election Services.
- The Panel
raised concerns with some community organisations having allegedly
received letters that stated that Civica had advised the Council
not to collect ballots in person. The Panel sought clarification as
to what advice the Council received from CES around collecting
ballots and whether this advice was followed. Officers
commented that they were not aware of the letters referred to or any statement from Civica to
that effect, but it was reiterated that the Council had consulted
Civica about the collection of sealed ballots and had followed all
of the guidance provided. Civica were happy that the ballot had
been properly undertaken
. In response to further questions
on this, officers agreed to circulate the text of the advice
that they received from Civica. (Action: Peter
O’Brien).
- The Panel
asked the Cabinet Member for House Building, Place-Making and
Development whether she would consider a re-run of the ballot in
light of the issues raised by the Panel. In response, Cllr Gordon
advised that there was no reason to overturn the ballot, as the
Scrutiny Panel had received multiple assurances from officers about
the integrity of the process and the fact that all of the relevant
guidance had been followed. The Cabinet Member reiterated that
there was no evidence of any irregularities having taken
place.
- In response
to alleged photographs on social media, the Panel was advised that
officers did not carry around a bag or box to put ballots in as
part of the election process. Officers advised that any ballot box
for in-person ballots would have been with Civica staff and would
have been clearly labelled with CES on it, rather than Haringey
Council. Officers set out that the Council had absolutely nothing
to do with ballot boxes and the management thereof.
- The Panel
recommended to the Cabinet Member that the collection of sealed
ballots by officers was not done
again in any future ballot process, regardless of whether this was
permissible or within the relevant guidance.
- The Panel
also recommended that the Cabinet Member for House Building,
Place-Making and Development give consideration to re-running the
ballot in light of the concerns raised during the
meeting.
RESOLVED
That
the report was noted.