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:
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.
