Who approves budgets and costs?
There are many different electoral systems. With the permanent national electoral commission,
annual funding includes provision for the work of the commission, including the elections for
which that commission is responsible during the year. The approval of funding, therefore, takes
place as part of the overall national expenditure and there is specific approval for the
commission's funding in the same way as for any other government department. The
commission does not therefore need approval for individual electoral processes in the normal
course of events. With this model, it is normally a requirement for the commission to publish an
annual report showing how the funding for the previous year was applied (including any under-
or over-spending) and also what budget is needed for the next year's activities. When this budget
is presented to the legislature there is an opportunity for questions to be raised about expenditure
incurred and planned. In this way, budget approval is slightly removed from the cost of a
particular electoral process.
Where a series of commissions at the national, regional and local level are set up for the purposes
of conducting the election, the costs of each level of commission often are approved by the next
level. This system has some economies in that the commissions are created for a specific task
and are temporary. In most opinions, however, they suffer the disadvantage of a lack of longer
term planning and training.
Where electoral management bodies are funded in the same manner as government departments,
problems have arisen because of difficulty in getting funds on a timely basis. Therefore, having
parliament vote on funds directly has some advantages.
In the United Kingdom (GB) there are no national criteria for fixing costs on voter registration,
but fees which can be charged for the sale of voter information are fixed by the national
government. Poll workers who are employed to work at local elections are paid fees fixed
locally, but on national elections, all poll worker fees are fixed on a national basis.
Very few (if any) electoral managers enjoy the luxury of being able to spend whatever they feel
is appropriate to carry out the electoral process. Normally, they have to seek the approval for
the budget of:
- the national government, either through the annual report process or by direct approval of
the electoral process costs;
- a national electoral commission, which would already have had their overall budget
approved;
-
- a regional or local council, with members being elected who may be responsible for voter
registration costs;
the national government after the event but where there are prescribed fees for all the key
parts of the electoral process.
The preparation of a proper overall budget showing the costs of each area of activity will make it
much easier for the approving authority to consider the submission. It is helpful to include
statistical information to assist in understanding how the costs are constituted. For example,
when setting out staff costs, it would be helpful to provide the numbers of full-time equivalent
staff and a brief explanation of the function of each group of staff.
The Mozambique (MZ) Election Budget for 1994 (Summary of Electoral Process Costs - Mozambique) is accompanied by a fact sheet
showing significant data on the electoral process (Data on Election Process - Mozambique) which gives information on what
was involved.
Whoever is approving the budget needs to know:
- how much the process is going to cost overall;
- when the expenditure will take place and whether interim funding is required;
-
what comparative data is available from a previous electoral process;
- what reasons
there are for significant changes from previous processes;
- what justification there is
for major expenditures on, for example, automation and what savings and benefits will accrue
from major expenditures;
- what are the main areas of expenditure and what will be
achieved in each of these areas;
- what evaluation of cost-saving options has taken place and how can it be shown that the
most economic options have been taken for achieving the electoral process;
- what
foreign exchange implications the proposed budget has.
Even if the electoral manager does not need to go into this level of detail to get budgets
approved, the questions should already have been asked within the managers organisation.
Common Issues
In any electoral process the same problems and issues frequently occur. When the budgets of
numerous local electoral managers have to be approved, there is considerable economy in those
managers working together to put issues before the national or local authority which controls the
expenditure. For example, where poll workers are extremely difficult to recruit and there is a
fixed national payment scale, managers should work together to get amendments. One of the
benefits of associations of local authorities or electoral managers is that they can take up issues
on a collective basis.
In looking at the use of the approved budget the electoral manager should always consider the
need for fairness and impartiality. All electors should be treated equally in terms of access to
polling sites or voter information or absentee balloting. The electoral manager needs to be able to
demonstrate that not only has the budget been used economically but also fairly.
