Basic Issues
Financial arrangements for voting operations must ensure that:
- sufficient funds are available for the required activities;
- there are adequate controls on their effective and proper use;
- funds are available at the time that they are needed.
(For financial management procedures for electoral management bodies, see Costs. For general discussions of budgeting and costing needs for voting operations, see Cost Considerations, Budgeting and Planning Cycle, Budgeting Systems, Funds Assurance, Timing for Electoral Funding and Budget Line Item Considerations.)
There are some further issues regarding financial management of voting operations that extend beyond budget and costing issues.
Authorisation of Expenditure
During the election period there will often be a need for staff expenditure and urgent purchases in field locations. Procedures for expenditure authorisation need to account for this through a strictly-controlled system of delegating limited expenditure powers up to the limit of their budget allocations to local offices. Monitoring systems for such expenditure are vital to ensure that budget limits for local administration areas are being adhered to, to shift funds between areas where necessary, and to ensure that funds are not being misappropriated. In well-controlled environments the issue of official credit cards for use by election administrators in purchasing election supplies may be appropriate.
Probity in Purchasing
There would usually be generally applicable state purchasing procedures that would govern the usual purchasing activities of electoral management bodies. However, the time frames needed to apply these procedures fully--in the use of standard tender processes, and possibly approval of major purchasing requests by infrequently meeting state tender boards--may make these impracticable during the compressed time frames of an election period. It is important, for timely supplies of material and equipment, that accelerated purchasing procedures are available that also maintain accountability and probity in purchasing. These should still require:
- comparison of potential suppliers product quality, suitability and prices so that value is achieved;
- protection against illegal commissions or collusion;
- controls against fraud by staff.
Staffing
Staffing costs will generally be the most significant cost component of voting operations, except in those jurisdictions where voting staff are legally obliged to provide their services free. How well these costs (see Staffing and Training Costs) are managed will, to a large extent, determine the cost-effectiveness of the whole election process.
Payment levels for staff need to be carefully considered. Except in societies where polling officials' duties are regarded as a civic responsibility, payment rates will need to be sufficient to attract and retain staff of acceptable quality. Retention is important; if payments are regarded as too low, polling officials may not be willing to accept employment offers for future elections, thus leading to loss of corporate experience.
Acceptable payment rates for polling officials could be derived by aligning their payments with those of staff with similar levels of responsibility in public sector agencies. Where different polling officials have different responsibility levels, e.g., for voting station managers as against a ballot box guard, some pay scale differentiation would be required. However, pay scales should be kept to as few gradations as possible, to enable simplicity and accuracy of processing.
Simplicity can be enhanced by paying polling officials a lump sum payment at the applicable rate for their voting day duties, training sessions and similar standard responsibilities.
Temporary administrative staff assisting in electoral management body offices would generally be more cost-effectively hired and paid on an hourly basis, in line with workload peaks and troughs. (For further discussion of voting operations staffing, see Staffing and Training.)
Staff Payment Systems
The large numbers of staff employed as polling officials will often put pressures on systems for payment of staff and control of validity of payments. There must be a workable system in place to pay all polling officials accurately and promptly. Staff should be informed of payment methods and dates during training. Payment systems must be capable of performing to a standard that allows these commitments to be met. Late or missing payments will discourage staff to accept future polling official appointments.
Opportunities for using existing wage payment systems, in large government agencies or private payroll contractors, should generally be pursued. For national elections, especially, the large numbers of staff to be paid may make it difficult to receive satisfactory service levels from external contractors (and staff not receiving payments within two weeks of voting day would be an unsatisfactory service level). Where no reliable existing systems of sufficient capacities are available, the generally more expensive route of developing an in-house system will need to be considered.
Staff Payment Methods
The actual method of payment will vary according to the environment. It may be possible to provide payment to staff on voting day itself--though this will provide additional security problems on a day when election material security is the paramount objective, and will require strict financial accountability controls on each voting station manager.
It would be more usual to mail payment cheques to officials following receipt and processing of attendance and performance records following voting day. However, payment immediately following conclusion of duties or by personal receipt from the electoral management body may be the only practicable method in some societies. Where payment is made after voting day, special arrangements will need to be made to forward payments to officials in areas where mail services are unreliable or in remote communities. Direct credit to bank accounts or personal receipt from electoral management body offices may be possible.
The distributed nature of staffing in large numbers of widely dispersed voting stations can present opportunities for 'ghosting', i.e., the payment of fictitious staff, and making unwarranted additional payments to polling officials. Systems for staff appointment and payment control have to be sufficiently robust to prevent these misappropriations, yet simple enough to allow expeditious processing of a large number of payments.
Accountability and Audit
As voting operations involve large numbers of staff and valuable, and often highly portable, equipment, distributed over many locations, systems for financial accountability need to be very robust. Particular care needs to be taken in maintaining controls over highly disposable small items, such as mobile phones and personal radios, and in ensuring that only authentic, officially appointed polling staff are paid. Official financial control procedures should be in place sufficient to ensure that:
- records are maintained of materials and equipment acquisitions and transfers--including assets registers, supply and receipting procedures and records, asset and materials disposal procedures and records;
- auditing systems for and records of polling staff payments are fully maintained;
- staff are made accountable for funds and materials/equipment in their possession;
- controls on finance disbursements and materials/equipment disposition are sufficient to prevent illegal or fraudulent appropriation of election assets.
During their training, election officials need to be made aware of these procedures, as well as any penalties for breaches of financial probity standards.
All financial transactions and acquisitions or transfers of materials and equipment for voting operations should be subject to thorough auditing to ensure that accountability processes are enforced. Where the electoral management body does not have its own auditing capability, there will be a need to engage outside auditing specialists.
International Assistance
International financial assistance for voting operations purposes may often be provided on the basis of brief assessment missions, which lack the time and opportunity to fully come to grips with local issues of funds availability timing requirements. There is a particular danger that late decisions from examination and approval processes in donor countries will lead to inefficient use or unused assistance. Like any other election financial arrangements, they are better planned in relation to the election timetable and properly targeted, rather than indiscriminately provided or provided too late for effective use for their intended purpose.
Accountability for international funding--particularly where it has been provided late and funds remain unspent at the close of the election period--is an important financial management issue. Donor involvement--through involvement in steering groups for funds use, or retention of some powers to approve funds use--may often be appropriate.
