Conclusion:
Most of the inquired observers believe that the average professional level of precinct election commission officials is much higher than of commission members. Observers gave quite positive assessment (3.2 points of 5) to the knowledge PEC officials have in the electoral legislation and procedures, and rather negative (2.4 points) to the corresponding knowledge of commission members.
Observers mainly criticized how PEC members compiled precinct protocols (2.8 points of 5) and considered appeals and complaints concerning organization of the election process at polling stations (2.9 points). At the same time, the readiness of voting premises and ballot boxes, as well as organization of the voting process received much higher points from observers (3.7 and 3.4 points respectively). Professionalism of election commission members in assistance to realization of observers' voting rights was assessed quite positively (3.4 points). However, taking into consideration that there were incidents when observers' rights were restricted on 11 and 18 December 2016, commission members should receive better knowledge of the rights official observers have and liability for their violation.
According to observers, the most common violation was obstruction to or restriction of observation during the issuance of ballot papers (43.5% of the inquired have mentioned about such problem). Commission members sometimes tried to make places where observers were asked to stay, or limited their free movement in polling places. Incidents when commissions refused to provide observers tabulation protocols were less widespread (30.4%).
Observers have also informed that they couldn't secure a comprehensive observation of electoral procedures because they were not allowed to attend morning or final meetings. Low level of legal knowledge and professional training of election commission members is also obvious from the fact that precinct election commissions didn't record any data in tabulation protocols on their morning meetings.
Besides that, observers often detected attempts to issue ballots without verification of documents. The problem is that commission members didn't consider such incidents as violations. For example, there was a resonant incident on elections to Vilsk united territorial community (Cherniakhiv raion, Zhytomyr oblast, polling station #181143), when election commission has legitimized an illegal issuance of ballots without verification of documents.
Observers believe that rewriting of protocols in territorial election commissions is a typical example of nonprofessionalism and negligent attitude to the duties among commission members.
They also emphasize that members of precinct election commissions often face difficulties when it comes to the order and succession of actions during the vote count. Besides that, experienced commission members often appeal to the regulations used in the previous elections.
54% of the observers have informed that PEC members didn't give any explanations to their illegal actions or inaction. When commission members did explain their actions, they referenced to the certain regulations (but wrongly interpreted them), or recommendations received on trainings (according to 37% of observers). Precinct election commission members sometimes also referenced to recommendations or directions of territorial election commissions (according to 23% of observers), or instructions from parties (candidates).
However, illegal actions of PEC members were not organized or purposeful, goaled to falsify election results or disrupt the election process. Most of the inquired observers (69%) said that negligent attitude to the duties was the main reason why members of precinct election commissions made mistakes, abused their authority or violated the law. Another key problem that caused mistakes and abuses was low-quality training of PEC members resulting in either poor knowledge or incapability to apply it in practice (according to 50% of observers). 31% of inquired observers said that the main reason of abuses and violations was the absence of training provided by NGOs or parties.
As for the professionalism of election commission members, 83.7% observers believe that the main task is to improve the training system for PEC members. Another solution, according to 73.5% of the inquired, is to change the method of selection (appointment) of commission members. 32.7% of observers suggested to raise the remuneration for commission members as the main source of motivation for professional development.
Observers suggest to cover the following topics more comprehensively in PEC trainings:
- Liability for election law violations (63.3% of the inquired believe this topic is important)
- Vote count procedure (55.1% of the inquired)
- Documenting activities of an election commission (46.9%)
- Completing the protocols (44.9%)
- Classification of electoral violations (38.8%)
- Rights and duties of all electoral stakeholders (36.7%)
- Rights and duties of a commission member (34.7%)
Although other topics are also important, they have lower priority in terms of increasing the professionalism of election commission members. In particular, these topics are the following: principles of election law and their realization; the procedure of a preparatory meeting; the voting process; calendar plan for commission activities; voter lists and excerpt from the voter list for voting at a places of stay; delivering and receiving ballot papers; preparations for the election, distribution of responsibilities.
As for the training methods, 67.3% of the inquired observers believe interactive trainings in small groups are going to the most efficient. Besides that, 59.2% of them said that analysis of real cases would be the most useful; and 44.9% of observers think that role playing and situation modeling methods would be the best. Classical trainings (presentations, lectures in large groups with answers to the questions), as well as analysis and commenting on the legislation are going to be less efficient, according to the observers (18.4% and 22.4% respectively). Online trainings, according to the inquired, are the least efficient.
According to 81.6% of the observers, detailed step-by-step instructions may be the best for increasing the qualification level of election commission members. 42.9% suggest to use frequently asked questions in trainings (questions and answers), as well as visual materials – infographics, block schemes etc. (30.6%). Dissemination of printed electoral law (or its excerpts), as well as thick manuals is the least effective approach, according to the observers.
As for the qualification test for PEC members, the observers have quite opposite opinions. 42.9% of the inquired believe that successfully passed qualification test should be a mandatory requirement for participation in activities of a precinct election commission. 36.7% of the inquired think that qualification test may be used only to assess the qualification level of PEC members. Only 8% of the observers say it is not necessary.
Recommendations:
To organizers of trainings for election commission members
- To increase awareness of precinct election commission members and teach them how to draw up precinct protocols, and consider appeals and complaints concerning the organization of voting process at a polling station.
- To include legal status (rights and duties) of all electoral subjects, including official observers, into training programs and materials for PEC members.
- Liability for violations of electoral legislation (including classification of electoral violations) should be presented in detail on trainings for precinct election commission members.
- To include practical trainings for members of precinct election commissions, dedicated to the precinct protocols, documentation of commission activities, and modeling of the vote count procedure.
- To attract simple members of precinct election commissions more actively and plan the training process with consideration of their experience and qualification needs.
- To provide consultations and prepare special instructing materials for election commission officials, who later will have to instruct election commission members by themselves.
- To use interactive trainings in small groups and analysis of legal cases as a basic methods of training and raising of qualification level.
- To prefer step-by-step instructions and FAQ in training materials for commission members (describing not only the duties of commission members, but also the actions, which must be avoided).
- To avoid contradictory recommendations concerning legal actions of election commission members (for example, description of a situation related to attendance of official observers during the vote count process at a PEC).
- To develop requirements for qualification test for election commission members and a training quality assessment system.
To the election commissions
- To conduct a wide awareness campaign among the voters and commission members concerning violation of the voting secrecy and the corresponding liability.
To the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine
- To regulate the training system for members of election commissions at a legislative level and make the qualification testing the basis for becoming a commission member.
- To reconsider the approach to remuneration of election commission members and provide more paid places.
- To improve the procedure used to bring election commission members to account for violations of electoral legislation.
To CSOs working in the corresponding matters
- To conduct an expert discussion concerning the settlement of issues related to the formation of election commissions and the selection of members in particular (based of qualification level or party affiliation).
The sampling includes regional coordinators and long-term observers of Civil Network OPORA, who represent all Ukrainian regions and are experienced in election observation since 2010. There were 50 experts registered. Online questionnaires were sent from 1 to 8 February 2017. The answers were summarized based on a single-dimension statistical division. The total number of statistical percentage may not equal 100% in some questions.