Lorraine Lorraine, Bertie Baws, Andy Brown Chris Darroch GaelForce Crafts Deborah Debs Inverkeithing Snp Independence Climber Nick Durie Alan Wyllie Calum Duncan et al! Below is the text of the letter which has now gone to all 32 counting officers. Despite my best efforts I missed the bit of law that says the COs are not bound under the Freedom on Information Act. Their management and returning officers are, however, and hopefully the questionnaires will be directed to them. I have been quiet because this has taken an awful lot of work and an awful lot of time. (Now I can start to think about helping with fund raising!): Dear ______, Under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act, I respectfully request the information detailed in the questionnaire below. Although only required by the FOIS Act to supply my name, I would like to explain the purpose of this inquiry. It is made in the interests of public confidence in the nation’s democratic processes and specifically the trustworthiness of the measures taken to ensure the integrity of the vote in the Scottish Independence Referendum of September 18th 2014. The stated aims of the Scottish and UK Parliaments and of the Electoral Commission were that there should be both a fair and transparent outcome to the Scottish Independence Referendum and a referendum conducted in such a way that there was public confidence in that outcome. Grounds for public confidence do not lie in any of the assurances that have been, or may be, given by public figures or bodies. Rather, they lie in the security procedures and protocols adopted. Confidence in these procedures and protocols is assured not by official statements but by the evidence of the record showing that they were fully and generally implemented. On my own behalf as named petitioner, therefore, and that of more than 1500 voters who have solemnly declared that they witnessed or were subject to procedural irregularities, I now seek proof absolute in the form evidenced facts and records, that protocols and procedures to protect the ballot papers and the votes cast, (whether mandated or recommended), were followed. I also seek clarification of other procedures that may have impacted the integrity of the referendum vote. I have explained the purpose of this request so that you may be aware that this inquiry is neither vexatious nor frivolous; that it touches on matters essential to the democratic process and that the proofs sought are those which every citizen has a right to demand of those who administer the vote within a democracy. (May I direct your attention to the notes following the questionnaire, and ask that you read these also before responding. Many thanks.) Please confirm who was chosen to print the ballot papers. If this printer was not the usual contractor during elections for this region please explain how this choice was made. A large number of voters in your region has reported that, despite seven separate reminders in the Referendum Handbook that polling officers and clerks must ask each voter to show the unique identifying number on the back of their ballots papers, this safety procedure was more often omitted than carried out. Please clarify, therefore: a. Whether a decision was made to omit this protocol at polling stations. If so by whom and for what reason? b. If not, please explain what failures in the training or preparation of polling officers and clerks might have been responsible for so widespread an omission. Please confirm who was contracted to act as the official courier for the ballot boxes between polling stations and the final count. If this courier service was not the usual contractor for elections in your region: a. Please confirm how often the ‘usual’ courier had been contracted to transport the ballot boxes in previous votes and b. Why a different choice was made for the independence referendum. Please confirm that the ballot boxes in your area were, in every instance, collected and accompanied by at least two couriers. Where you cannot confirm this, (for instance in those cases where you may be aware – as we are - that single drivers collected and transported ballot boxes), please explain how this occurred. Please confirm why the recommendation that a police escort accompany the ballot boxes between polling stations and the final counting place, was not followed. Please confirm whether the unique numbers on the seals of the ballot boxes were recorded prior to being issued to polling stations. Please confirm whether or not the unique numbers on the seals of the ballot boxes were recorded at the polling stations and then checked against the ballot boxes on arrival at the count. (Please provide simple yes or no answers in this instance.) Please confirm whether or not the unique numbers on any unused, extra seals for the ballot boxes were recorded and checked on arrival at the count. Where seal numbers were not recorded, please explain how it was possible to ensure that ballot boxes were not opened and the vote tampered with in circumstances where only one courier transported the boxes, along with extra seals whose security numbers also had not been recorded and “would be impossible to check at the count” and without a police escort. Notes in respect of these questions: The basis for inquiry in questions 1 and 2 is to establish the truth, the fallacy or the extent of the fallacy in practice of the assertions made by the Electoral Commission that: “ … there (were) several stages of the process at which the ballot papers used (were) quality checked. Part of this checking include(d) ensuring that the unique identifying mark (was) present on each ballot paper. These checks (were) carried out: · During the printing process. · Prior to the ballot papers leaving the elections office for the counting area, when the ballot papers are allocated to each polling station. · At the polling station, before the poll opens. · At the polling station, when the polling staff issue the ballot paper to each elector.” Eligibility for access to information in questions 1 and 3: Neither the terms and conditions of any contract have been requested nor the amounts of any payments. Nothing in this request, therefore, can be considered liable to breach the requirement of secrecy for information that must be held as ‘commercial in confidence’. On the other hand, the security of this stage of procedure can only be objectively verified by the opportunity to interview the contractors and review the records. It is not defensible to bar voters from establishing whether the requisite procedures were carried out but to require them, instead, to take this on trust rather than evidence. This will only serve to further undermine public confidence in the outcome of the referendum. In respect of any risk of exposing contractors or your own officers to unreasonable and repeated demands for the same information: The answers received to these questions as well as those received from contractors, will be made available and advertised on a public website. We will be happy to provide you with the answers we receive from contractors so that you may do the same and so that neither your office nor the named businesses need respond to the same questions repeatedly. Thank you for your kind and prompt attention, Yours Sincerely
Posted on: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 16:40:05 +0000