EMBs will have different levels of flexibility to determine their own organisational structure. EMBs following the Independent Model who have powers to hire and fire their staff may be best placed to determine their own structure. Notwithstanding, there may be restrictions on the EMB flexibility, no matter which EMB model is in place:
‘Developing’ is a key term for organisational structures for EMBs. Planning an initial structure is the first step, but maintaining an organisational structure that continues to meet the evolving legal framework, advances in electoral, information and communications technology, and expectations of stakeholders, is the real challenge.
Flexibility to change structures to meet these demands is more difficult when the organisational structure is partially or wholly defined by law or regulations of bodies other than the EMB, or where the organisation and its staff are subject to general civil service rules. Independent Model EMBs which have control of their own staffing may be better placed to take advantage of structural flexibility.
Decentralised EMBs need to determine the accountability structure for regional offices. Do they report direct to the members of the EMB, or to the chief of the national secretariat, which is the more usual route? The situation becomes more complex if the legal framework defines a structure where there are both appointed members of regional EMBs and EMB secretariats at regional and lower levels. This has been the case in Indonesia, where the appointed regional EMB members report hierarchically to the EMB members at the next higher geographic level EMB, and the secretariat at the regional level reports to the head of the EMB secretariat at the next higher level. Such complex and divided reporting arrangements may confuse staff as to who ultimately directs them.
