Certain conditions are required for official oversight to be effective and properly play its checks-and-balances role in maintaining integrity.

Independence

Oversight agencies and inspectors general should have enough independence to ensure their impartiality. This means they must have sufficient human and financial resources to do their job without having to depend on other institutions. Their staff members should be non-partisan and have no personal stake in the outcome of their oversight work. As organizations, they should have the independence to perform their duties without interference.

Auditors should be shielded from any political pressure 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, for example, official oversight is the responsibility of the Commissioner of Canada Elections. The Commissioner is independent, and is free to act without influence from political parties or the government. The Commissioner reports to Parliament through the Chief Electoral Officer. [2]

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 because of the content of their reports.

Access

For effective oversight, the agency responsible needs access, when requested, to election offices, persons 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 most systems, official oversight agencies have the authority to compel election authorities, or others, to furnish documents.

Quality and Accuracy

Good oversight must be professional, impartial, accurate and timely. It is more easily achieved if the agencies responsible can count on properly trained staff who apply good practices, have sound judgment, and understand the electoral system and its legal context.

The findings of oversight agencies should be accurate and reflect the actual situation. Problems and instances of non-compliance are documented and reported in context. Oversight reports should not be editorials, or contain unsubstantiated or biased opinions. Factual reports containing all relevant information can help electoral administrators correct integrity problems.

Oversight agencies usually benefit from an internal quality control system that reviews investigative reports. 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. [3]

Authority

Integrity will be enhanced if the oversight body can publish its findings and recommendations, without interference. A report or its findings should not be suppressed, censored or altered because it might embarrass or criticize the election administration or ruling party.

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 the accountability of electoral administrators and election participants.

Political Use of Oversight

Official oversight should not become a political tool. Instead, it should seek to provide routine, impartial audits of the electoral administration and the actions of election participants. However, politicians also have an oversight function, for instance, as members of legislative committees. Sometimes they may use their role for political ends. 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 electoral policy or management body.

Legislative oversight is a checks-and-balances function, but it can be difficult to separate politics from this type of oversight. One of the checks on overly partisan legislative oversight is public monitoring by the media and public interest groups.

Enforcement of Findings

Integrity problems identified by oversight bodies need in-depth attention. Most systems have mechanisms to ensure that oversight findings and recommendations are acted on by the election body or other affected organizations. These mechanisms are usually part of the legal framework, which may also ensure compliance by imposing sanctions, such as a freeze on public funds or the levying of fines. Illegal activities uncovered through oversight are usually handled by the justice system. Special investigators are mandated to determine the facts, gather evidence and, depending on the case, convince prosecutors to institute proceedings.

NOTES

[1] Comptroller General of the United States, Government Auditing Standards, 2003 Revision.

[2] Commissioner of Canada Elections, *Investigators’ Manual*, 2004.

[3] Comptroller General of the United States, Government Auditing Standards, 2003 Revision.