Certain conditions are important
for official oversight to be effective.
Independence
Oversight agencies and
inspectors general generally have a sufficient degree of independence to ensure
their impartiality. This means they need sufficient human and financial
resources to do their job without having to rely unduly on other institutions.
Their staff members are non-partisan in their approach and have no personal
stake in the outcome of their work. As organizations, oversight bodies should
have the independence to perform their duties without interference.
Auditors should be shielded
from any political pressure, in order to ensure their objectivity and enable
them to report their findings and present their opinions/conclusions without
fear of repercussions. As far as possible, the merit principle should apply in
determining their salaries, training, job tenure and promotion.[1]
In Canada,
where (as we have seen) official oversight is the responsibility of the
Commissioner of Canada Elections, the Commissioner is independent and free to
act without influence from political parties or the government. The
Commissioner reports to Parliament through the Chief Electoral Officer.
Lack of independence can give rise to various problems:
- interference or undue
influence that limits or alters the scope of oversight, audit or
investigative work;
- restrictions on the
oversight procedures and mechanisms that can be selected for use;
- unreasonable restrictions
on the amount of time allowed for completing an investigation or audit;
- interference in the
selection of personnel for oversight, audit or investigation;
- restrictions on funds or
other resources required for oversight, preventing the organization from
carrying out its responsibilities;
- influence exerted to
alter the content of audit or investigative reports; and
- threats to terminate the
employment of oversight staff, auditors or investigators due to the
content of their reports.
Access
For effective oversight, the
agency responsible needs access, when requested, to electoral offices, personnel
and information. The oversight agency must be able to examine documents and
computer files or databases. It needs physical access to verify the existence
and condition of goods and services purchased with public funds. Access is
usually guaranteed by law and regulation. In addition, in many systems,
official oversight agencies have the authority to compel election or other authorities,
or third parties, to provide information or furnish documentation.
Quality
and Accuracy
Good oversight should be
professional, impartial, accurate and timely. It is more easily achieved if the
agencies responsible have properly trained staff who apply good practices,
sound judgment, and understanding the electoral system and its legal context.
The findings of oversight
agencies should be accurate and reflect the actual situation in its entirety.
Problems and instances of non-compliance should be documented and reported in
context. Oversight reports should not be subjective in approach, or contain
unsubstantiated or biased opinions. Accurate, unbiased and factual reports
containing all relevant information can help electoral administrators correct
integrity problems.
Oversight agencies would benefit
from an internal quality control system that vets investigative reports prior
to their being disseminated. Internal review can help ensure compliance with
applicable standards, policies and procedures. Effective quality control
depends on a number of factors, including the extent of the agency’s resources,
the degree of autonomy allowed to it, and its organizational structure.[2]
Authority
Integrity is enhanced if the
oversight body can publish its findings and recommendations without unnecessary
reviews or potential interference. A report or its findings should not be
suppressed, censored or altered because it criticizes or might embarrass electoral
administration, the Government or ruling party, or certain election
participants and/or their supporters.
The ability to publish
findings and recommendations is crucial to the independence of the oversight
body. It is vital for the transparency of the process, and to ensure the accountability
of electoral administrators and election participants.
Political
Use of Oversight
However, official oversight should not become a political tool. Instead, it should seek to provide regular,
impartial audits of the electoral administration and the actions of election
participants.
However, elected politicians
also have a legitimate oversight function -- for instance, as members of
legislative committees with jurisdiction over electoral law or the electoral
system. It should be taken into account, however, that sometimes parliamentarians
may use their legislative role and powers for political ends. For example, political
considerations may affect the timing of an investigation (e.g., initiated at a politically sensitive moment), its scope, or
the timing of the release of a report (e.g.,
just before an election). All this can hamper the administration of
elections—for example, by giving rise to funding freezes or calls for the
resignation of senior executives of the EMB or other agencies or entities.
Legislative oversight serves a
core checks-and-balances function, but it can be difficult to separate politics
from this type of oversight. One of the balances on legislative oversight is independent
monitoring, including by the media and NGOs.
Enforcement
of Findings
Integrity problems identified
by oversight bodies require serious attention. Most systems have mechanisms to
ensure that oversight findings and recommendations are acted on by the EMB or
other affected organizations. Special investigators are mandated to determine
the facts, gather evidence and, depending on the case, consult with prosecutors
concerning potential formal proceedings.
These mechanisms are usually contained
in the legal framework, which may also ensure compliance by authorizing sanctions,
such as a freeze on public funds or the levying of fines on
violators. Criminal infractions revealed through oversight are usually referred
to the justice system.
[2] Comptroller General of the United States, ibid.
