Oversight usually requires several conditions for it to be effective and fulfil its checks and balance role. In general, these conditions include:
Independence
Oversight agencies and Inspector Generals usually need enough independence so they can work impartially. This requires adequate financial and human resources so they can do their job properly without having to depend on other institutions. It also requires an independent staff without a personal stake in the outcome of their oversight and the institutional independence so that the work can be done without interference.
Auditors should be sufficiently removed from political pressures to ensure that they can conduct their audits objectively and can report their findings, opinions and conclusions objectively without fear of political repercussions. Whenever feasible, they should be under a personnel system in which compensation, training, job tenure and advancement are based on merit. 278
For example, in Canada, official oversight is carried out by the Commissioner of Canada Elections. The Commissioner is independent but reports to a Parliament Committee through the Chief Electoral Officer. 'Independence is vital to the Commissioner's role. The Commissioner must be free to act without influence from political parties or the government. This political independence is an essential aspect of maintaining and promoting the exercise of fundamental democratic rights in the electoral process.' 279
Some of the problems that can stem from a lack of independence can include:
- interference or influence that improperly or imprudently limits or modifies the scope of the oversight, audit or investigation;
- limiting the selection of oversight procedures and mechanisms to be used;
- unreasonable restrictions on the amount of time allowed to complete an investigation or audit;
- interference in the selection of personnel for oversight, audit or investigation;
- restricting funds or other resources for oversight that would adversely affect the organization's ability to carry out its responsibilities;
- influencing or changing the content of oversight reports, audits or investigative reports; and
- threatening the continued employment of oversight staff, auditors or investigators because of the content of a report.
Access
To effectively provide oversight, the official oversight agency needs access to election offices, persons and information. The oversight agency must be able to examine documents and computerized records or databases. It needs physical access to verify the existence and condition of property and services purchased with public funds.
Access is usually guaranteed by law and regulation. In addition, it must be timely and appropriate. In most systems, official oversight agencies are given the authority to obtain subpoenas to compel the election authorities, or others, to produce specific documentation. These subpoena's are enforced by an order of the court, with punishment for noncompliance. In Israel, for example, The Internal Audit Law (Israel) provides penalties for situations where:
- an auditor was not appointed but was supposed to have been;
- if an unqualified auditor was appointed; or
- if an internal auditor was prevented from having access to information, premises or forms when conducting a review. 280
If an oversight agency is given investigative powers, it usually is able to administer and take affidavits under oath. (See Interviews & Collection of Evidence). For instance, the Independent Commission Against Corruption in New South Wales, Australia, can require a public authority to provide statements, produce documents, and with specific written authority, enter premises and inspect and copy documents. Warrants may be obtained to search properties, use listening devices and intercept telephone calls. It can hold hearings as part of its investigations, and call witnesses who must appear and testify. 281
Quality and accuracy
Good oversight is professional, timely, impartial and accurate. This is helped whenthe oversight agencies are adequately staffed and have personnel with adequate skills and training. Oversight can be improved when personnel follow good practice standards, have sound judgement and understand the electoral system and its legal context.
For integrity purposes, oversight findings should be accurate and fairly reflect the actual situation. Problems and instances of noncompliance are documented and reported in perspective. Factual reports that contain all relevant information can help overseers and the electoral managers locate and correct integrity problems. Oversight reports should not be editorials, contain unsubstantiated opinions or have a partisan slant. For more on reports see Audits.
Oversight agencies usually benefit from an appropriate internal quality control system which reviews oversight and reporting. An internal review system can help make sure that applicable standards, policies and procedures are adequately followed. Good quality control depends on several factors, including the size of the agency, 'the degree of operating autonomy allowed its personnel and its audit offices, the nature of this work, it organizational structure, and appropriate cost-benefit considerations.' 282
Authority
Integrity can be enhanced if the oversight body has the ability to publish its findings and recommendations, without interference. A report, or its findings, should not be suppressed, censored or altered because it might be politically embarrassing or is critical of the election administration or ruling party.
The ability to publically disseminate findings and recommendations is an important integrity issue. It relates to the independence of the oversight body in being able to do its work in a professional and timely manner without interference. It relates to the transparency of the process, and it directly impacts the accountability of election administrators and participants.
Political use of oversight
Official oversight should not be used as a political tool. It should be a routine, impartial check and balance on electoral administration, and the actions of its participants. Unfortunately, politicians, who have an oversight function in their legislative committee capacity, can sometimes use oversight for partisan reasons. This can affect the timing of an investigation (initiating it at a politically sensitive moment), the scope of an investigation (fishing expeditions), or the timing of the release (just before voting). It can result in funding freezes until an investigation is over hampering the administration of the elections, or it can results in calls for high level resignations among the electoral policy and management bodies.
Legislative oversight serves a valid checks and balance function, but it can be difficult to separate politics from this type of oversight. One of the checks on partisan excesses in legislative oversight is the public monitoring of legislative action by the Media and public interest groups.
Enforcement of findings
Integrity problems identified by oversight bodies need to be addressed. Most systems have a mechanism to ensure that the oversight findings and recommendations are acted upon by the election management body or other affected organization. These mechanisms are usually incorporated into the legal framework, and can include sanctions, such as the freezing of public funds or the levying fines, to ensure compliance. Illegal activities uncovered through oversight are usually handled by the criminal justice system.
