NUS Elections Report Huddersfield

Introduction

NUS acted as the Returning Officer for the Huddersfield Students’ Union elections in March 2016. After the results were declared we were approached by the trustee board to further investigate a number of complaints about candidate behaviour which were accompanied by a petition to the union.

Investigation and findings

In total there were twenty five complaints received by the Deputy Returning Officer, seven of which were received during the canvassing and voting period and eighteen were received after the results had been declared. After initial investigation into the complaints made three were found to be substantive enough to require further investigation. For the three incidents we reviewed CCTV for the times and places mentioned, reviewed evidence provided with the complaints and conducted interviews with those involved, both candidates accused and those who made the complaints.

Incident A – regards a complaint made after the results had been announced linked to a complaint made and dealt with during voting. Both complaints accused candidates in one slate of breaching rule “2.1 Candidates and members of their campaign team must allow voters the opportunity to cast their vote in private, and under no circumstances must votes be cast on a voter’s behalf”.

The evidence provided, from CCTV footage and interviews did not demonstrate that there were specific incidents where candidates or campaigners voted on someone’s behalf or that students did not cast their ballot in private.

Incident B–regards a complaint specifically against a candidate who is accused of breaching rule “2.1 Candidates and members of their campaign team must allow voters the opportunity to cast their vote in private, and under no circumstances must votes be cast on a voter’s behalf”.

Having investigating the evidence provided against the CCTV there was no evidence of the candidate mentioned having breached this rule. In the interviews this was supported as no specific incidents could be identified.

Incident C – refers to a complaint made against a specific candidate with regards to a specific incident where the candidate is alleged to have breached rule “2.1 Candidates and members of their campaign team must allow voters the opportunity to cast their vote in private, and under no circumstances must votes be cast on a voter’s behalf”.

The area where the incident is accused to have taken place is not covered by CCTV so there is no conclusive evidence that it did or did not take place. The voting records do show votes were cast at the times identified in the complaint and verified in the interviews. Having conducted the investigation there is no conclusive evidence so Incident C remains unproven and it is doubtful it would have had a material effect on the result.

Recommendations

Having completed the investigation we have the following recommendations for further consideration by the union for future elections;

  • Provide training open for campaigners to attend as well as candidates about appropriate ways to canvass, set clear expectations about what rule 2.1 tries to achieve.
  • Facilitate a discussion amongst student leaders or broader about the role of slates in elections.
  • Investigate what further steps can be taken to eradicate barriers for a greater number of candidates to be involved.
  • Eradicate the ability to recast a vote from the digital voting platform.
  • Investigate how the union can better facilitate voting across campus and online with guidance.
  • Pool electronic devices such as ipads should not be used with the exception of the union voting stations