Agenda item

Love Lane Ballot

Minutes:

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:

 

  1. 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).

  1. Cllr Ibrahim suggested that Civica administered the election and that they would have process in place for tallying up and verifying spoiled ballots.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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).
  9. 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. 
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.

Supporting documents: