A Preliminary Consideration of the Elections 6th May 2010

Summary

There were problems in the elections, some of which were extremely serious and
could have called into question the validity of the results. A detailed and
independent review is required to ensure that problems are identified and
solutions introduced before a future election.

This is a Preliminary Consideration because there will need to be an independent

review of what happened why and what lessons can be learnt. The report
describes how the election system in Bristol works, what went wrong and why
,and sets out some possible recommendations for the future.

This report does not purport to prejudge in any way the findings of the
independent review but seeks to assist that review by setting out the
understanding of the Returning Officer of what went wrong and why.

The report sets out some possible changes of practice but these are primarily in
response to the particular problems which arose. There are other possible
changes in practice, which are not set out here.

An Apology

It is an honour to be the Returning Officer for local elections or an Acting

Returning Officer of parliamentary elections, and the highest standards are
properly expected. It is only by having a process in which candidates, their
agents and the public can trust that democracy is protected.

Problems arose in these election’s which understandably gave grave concern to

those present and subsequently, via the media, to the public.

The Returning Officer unreservedly apologises for the failures in maintaining the
requisite standards and welcomes the independent investigation and involvement
of the Electoral Commission.

Bristol City Council Page 1 5/26/2010

 Contents
How the Election Process works
• The Elections
• The Election Team
• The Buildings
• The IT Support
• The Issuing of the Poll Cards
The Postal Vote
• OPT2VOTE
• Training
• The Polling Stations
• The Counts

What went wrong why it went wrong/possible solutions

• Telephones
• The Poll Card’s
• The Wrong Ballot Papers
• The Move of a Parliamentary Counting Centre
• Communication with the Returning Officer
• Disclosure of ‘results’ from opening of postal votes by Kerry McCarthy MP
• The Parliamentary Counts
o Bristol North West handed in postal votes in wrong ballot box.
o Bristol South - Count Venue
o Bristol South - Verification of Hengrove Ward Local Count
o Bristol South – Post verification - Bishopsworth papers put in
Bedminster ballot box
• The Local Election Counts

Bristol City Council Page 2 5/26/2010

 How it works

The Elections

On 6th May 2010 there was a parliamentary election and a Bristol City Council
local election – comprising 23 wards. Within Bristol there are 4 parliamentary
constituencies – Bristol South, Bristol North West, Bristol East and Bristol West.

All paperwork – including ballot papers – for the parliamentary election was white
and for the local elections was yellow.

The number of electors is approximately 304,000 for the Parliamentary elections

and 200,000 for the 23 local ward elections.

The Acting Returning Officer for the elections in the four Parliamentary
constituencies was Stephen McNamara (The Lord Mayor is the Returning
Officer) Stephen McNamara is the Returning Officer for the local elections.

The Election Team

There is a permanent Electoral Services team of:

• Statutory Services Manager – job share [also responsible for Registration,
Coroner Admin, Mortuary and Lord Mayor’s office]
• Electoral Services Manager 1 FTE
• Electoral Services Officer 1 FTE
• Electoral Services Assistants 6.5 FTE

Electoral Services are supplemented by a very experienced team of temporary

staff (circa 12), utilised during the annual canvas and in the lead up to elections.

The staffing team recruits circa 1000 staff for an election, ranging from Deputy
Acting Returning officers to Poll Clerks & Counters.

Bristol City Council staff are encouraged to participate in the election process,
however there is also a resource of staff with previous experience.

The Buildings

a) The Corn Exchange – Office base of the Electoral Services team. The
team are due to be relocated from the Corn Exchange. This building is
inaccessible to wheelchair users.

b) The rooms in the Council House –

• Postal vote scanning centre – Conference Hall

Bristol City Council Page 3 5/26/2010

 • Ballot box preparation – Room 1 and the Lord Mayor’s
Reception Room
• Ballot box storage overnight – Lord Mayor’s Parlour
• Local counts – Conference Hall, Room 1, Lord Mayor’s
Reception, Room 6, Room 9, Room 15
• Results Service – Third floor.
• Information to agents and declarations – Council Chamber
c) The polling stations – 142 sites throughout the city
d) The count centres –
Parliamentary
- Merchants Academy – South
- Dolman Stand, Bristol City FC – North West
- City Academy - West
- Brislington Enterprise College - East

Local - The Council House

The IT support

Election Management System - A bespoke software package ‘Pickwick’, provided

by Northgate Information Systems, forms the basis for all electoral events i.e.
annual canvas, publication of the electoral register, and election management,
including production of data files to third parties, and compliance with data
standards & electoral legislation.

Northgate have recently invested in a replacement for Pickwick - a Windows

based format ‘NEEMS’. This has not yet been introduced in Bristol and Bristol
City Council continues to use the Pickwick system, this has reduced software
support.

The Issuing of the Poll Cards

Poll cards are printed by Bristol City Council ICT/Printing and Stationery. Local
poll cards were dispatched on 30th March 2010 and parliamentary on 12th April
2010.

Poll cards contain information about polling station locations and opening hours
and also the deadlines for applying for postal or proxy votes.

Electors are not required to produce poll cards at the polling station.

Bristol City Council Page 4 5/26/2010

 The Postal Vote (PV)

The following is a basic description of how the PV system works:

 Applications are received from electors to vote by post

 PV application includes specimen signature & date of birth
 Forms are scanned onto the database for comparison during elections.
 Scanned images are provided to the postal vote management contractor
(Opt2Vote) to enable those comparisons
 Applications to vote by post can be made up to 11 working days before an
election
 Prior to an election, postal vote packs are produced & sent to voters via
Royal Mail (first class). These packs contain a verification statement for
completion of signature & date of birth, plus ballot paper (s).

Production of the postal packs relies on the integrity of the Electoral Management
system (EMS) i.e. the storage of the electoral register including details of postal
and proxy voters and relating these to polling districts, wards and constituencies.
The scanned images of returned forms are held here, as are markers that identify
specific electors as postal voters.

The EMS system is part of the Pickwick package (see above re IT).

The EMS produces a data file, which is transferred to Opt2Vote (see below) to
allow them to print the appropriate PV packs.

Opt2Vote deadlines allow only sufficient time to ‘spot check’ the data The closing
date for public application to vote by post is 5pm on 20th April 2010, the deadline
for data transfer to Opt2vote is 12 midnight the same day. NB after the 5pm
deadline, the staff work for a number of hours making the final additions. Only
after this is completed can the information be checked and sent to Opt2Vote.

There were 47,000 postal voters for these elections.

The published indicative date – as part of the election timetable - for there
dispatch was the week commencing 26th April 2010.

Returned postal packs are delivered to the Council House. The opening of the
postal packs takes place in view of candidates and agents.

The postal pack is opened and the statement & ballot paper are separated. The
statement is scanned, and if it matches with the database, the subsequently
scanned ballot paper will be accepted as valid.

Bristol City Council Page 5 5/26/2010

It should be emphasised that the function of the postal vote scanning centre is to
identify and compare signatures and dates of birth from the original application to
the information in the received postal vote envelope. The personal verification
statement containing the signature and date of birth is scanned electronically and
compared with the original data. If any anomaly is discovered then an Electoral
Services Officer reviews this verification statement and this can be viewed by a
screen set up for agents and candidates present. There is no rejection
procedure akin to what takes place at a count in relation to the ballot papers.
Ballot papers are scanned and placed in a ballot box to go the count centres.

A record is kept of all the rejected postal vote statements and the number of
accepted ballot papers. At the counts, only the number of accepted postal votes
is provided i.e. as shown on the Verification and Results Statement (DRO/1)
under the section ‘Postal votes brought to the counts (PV/2)’.

Records are kept of the number of postal packs opened and how many were
accepted on a ward by ward and constituency by constituency basis.

Accepted ballot papers are stored in ward and constituency order, in ballot
boxes. During the week that the scanning centre was operational, two senior
officers placed these ballot papers in the ballot boxes. NB the ballot boxes were
set out in alphabetical order – this is relevant as a potential factor in contributing
to votes being placed in the wrong ballot box (see later).

On Election Day there is a right to return postal ballot papers to any polling
station. These are collected twice during the day by polling station inspectors
with the last collection at approximately 6pm. The polling station inspector
delivers the postal ballot papers in an envelope to the postal vote scanning
centre. These are then opened as above. NB representatives of candidates and
agents have a right to be at the postal vote scanning centre at any time that
ballot papers are opened and processed.

Postal ballot papers hand delivered to a polling station after the last collection are
delivered by the Presiding Officer to the count centre in an envelope containing a
record of the number. When the counting centre has received the envelopes
from each polling station, the total number of postal votes received is recorded.
Agents and Candidates are briefed about the number of postal votes being sent
to the postal vote scanning centre. It is explained that more votes may come
back to the count from the postal vote scanning centre. This is because not all
the postal votes at the scanning centre have been processed by the time the
ballot boxes containing the postal votes are sent to the counts. Therefore more
postal votes may be returned to the count centre, in addition to the late handed in
postal votes handed in to the polling stations.

Bristol City Council Page 6 5/26/2010

 Opt2Vote

Opt2Vote is the Bristol City Council contractor for postal vote packs and printing
(which is subcontracted to a company in Leicester). It also provides a ‘managed’
scanning centre service (as described above), ascertaining the validity of
returned postal votes. The requirement for scanning postal ballot papers and
documents was introduced in 2007.

Bristol first used Opt2Vote’s services in 2007 for the City Council elections.
Opt2Vote’s other clients include major cities such as Birmingham, Sheffield,
Bradford, Leicester & Dundee.

Training

Parliamentary Counts

o Deputy Acting Returning Officers (DAROs) were briefed

individually by the Electoral Services Manager and Officer.
Detailed written instructions and a written ‘basic process’ were
provided. A second briefing / mentoring took place for the DARO
in Bristol North West the day before election by another DARO.
o DAROs held meetings to brief their teams (bar Bristol East, where
the DARO was a stand in due to a late cancellation). Two
Verification Officers (VO) were given verbal instructions over the
phone by the Electoral Services Officer.
o No written instructions were issued for any other individual role and
the DARO had sole responsibility for briefing the team. The teams
consisted of experienced or ‘qualified’ staff e.g. accountants for the
figure work.

Postal vote scanning centre

A ‘training’ day was run on 29th April when 1,600 votes were opened.
All key staff were present that day and they were “walked” through
each job.

Presiding Officers
• The Electoral Services Manager ran 2 training / briefing sessions
covering 142 staff, over 2 sessions, plus a ‘mop’ up session to
cover staff cancellations.

Bristol City Council Page 7 5/26/2010

Poll Clerks
• The Electoral Services Officer ran 4 training / briefing sessions,
plus a ‘mop’ up session to cover staff cancellations. All 317 staff
were also provided with written instructions and sample forms
covering role, responsibilities and preparation.

Polling Station Inspectors

• The Electoral Services Manager briefed all 13 station inspectors on
their duties and responsibilities. These include cover for absence,
an ‘on call’ facility for polling station staff, and collection, receipt and
delivery of late handed in Postal votes to the Council House.

The Polling Stations

There was one ballot box for both elections; so all ballot papers for parliamentary
and local elections were placed in the same box. This has been standard
practice for combined elections in Bristol.

Polling stations were busy, with queues at Bishop Road Primary School and
South Street Primary School, however these situations were managed by polling
station staff, and everyone in a queue by 10pm was allowed to vote.

The Counts
It is normal practice to hold Parliamentary counts within the appropriate
constituency where possible.

Suitable venues must take account of the number of people attending, access
and facilities required to run the count eg, catering, television, public address
system, tables, chairs, electric points etc.

The Deputy Acting Returning Officer (DARO) is responsible for the briefing and
supervision of onsite staff, ensuring that count layouts are easily accessed and
planned, and for the smooth running of both the verification and count processes.
The DARO will also make regular announcements at key junctures, adjudicate on
doubtful ballot papers, declare verification results and declare the results etc.

Bristol City Council Page 8 5/26/2010

 What went wrong

Telephones

What went wrong

There was a significant shortfall in responding to telephone demand. For

example:
• Many people were unable to get a response from Electoral Services to
their queries or requests.

Why it went wrong

a) There was a failure to ensure an adequate telephone service was

available.

Possible solutions: Electoral Services phone calls to be taken by the call

centre:
o To answer basic queries and provide basic information.
o Investigate possibility of issuing electoral registration forms and
possibly updating the electoral register.
o Train call centre staff to understand election timetable and key
dates for delivery of election material particularly postal votes. To
ensure that those using postal votes understand when they may be
delivered.

The poll card problem

What went wrong: It has been reported that poll cards were not delivered to
all voters – there are individual reports and a specific report that three streets
in Clifton did not receive poll cards. It is not known for certain how accurate
these reports are given the delivery dates of the cards. A meeting will be
arranged with TNT / Royal Mail to gauge the extent of this problem.

Why it went wrong: Until the meeting with TNT / Royal Mail it is not possible
to comment.

What should happen in the future: Consideration should be given to the

introduction of a monitoring system to enable records to be kept of what was
delivered and when.

Bristol City Council Page 9 5/26/2010

 The Wrong Postal Ballot Paper’s

What went wrong: 2381 postal ballot papers were sent to Lawrence Hill and
Easton voters (which following boundary changes are now in Bristol West) with
Bristol East ballot papers, on Friday 23rd April.

The problem was discovered on Monday 26th April as a result of a telephone call
to Electoral Services at approximately 9.45 am from a voter complaining that they
had been sent the wrong ballot paper.

On reviewing the data files it was discovered that postal ballot papers had been
prepared and were ready for dispatch on Monday 26th April to electors in the
KEA1 polling district of Knowle ward as well as all other areas with combined
elections. The KEA1 postal packs contained Bristol East ballot papers, but
should have contained Bristol South papers. These had not been dispatched and
a reprint was ordered.

Telephone conversations took place with Northgate and Opt2vote to seek to

discover when a new set of correct ballot papers could be printed. This depended
upon ensuring that the information was accurate and that the printers would have
the capacity to perform the necessary print run. It was emphasised to Opt2Vote
that the new ballot papers must be available before the weekend. Whilst that was
the clear objective, there could be no certainty at that time. On the Monday there
remained uncertainty as to how to solve the corrupt data problem, and
uncertainty as to when the printers would be available. The Northgate IT expert
was in hospital on the Monday but attended at the Corn Exchange at 7.15pm that
day.

The accuracy of the information submitted by the election staff was checked and
confirmed as accurate. The most likely explanation is that the software system
overrode the correct information and replaced it with the ward boundaries which
existed prior to the boundary changes that took place once the parliamentary
election had been called.

The agents for candidates in Bristol East and Bristol West were informed on
Monday 26th April by email or letter. A press release was issued. The Acting
Returning Officer tried to speak by telephone to all the agents that afternoon, a
letter was sent to the affected voters within 24 hours. The Acting Returning
Officer gave a radio interview on Radio Bristol on Tuesday morning.

The Acting Returning Officer decided that it was not necessary to write to the
Bristol South/Bristol East agents about the Knowle ballot paper problem as they

Bristol City Council Page 10 5/26/2010

had not been dispatched.

The Chief Executive of Bristol City Council was briefed on the problem and she
spoke with Dawn Primorolo (the Labour Party candidate for the Bristol South
constituency) towards the end of that Monday - Ms Primorolo having contacted
her.

It had been planned to send out all the remaining postal ballot papers on that
Monday, but the Acting Returning Officer decided that there needed to be a
comprehensive check of the papers before dispatch and every effort should be
made to locate the Knowle papers.

All 31,000 of the postal vote packs were checked on Tuesday 27th April. All but
two of the incorrect Knowle packs were discovered and removed. Letters were
sent to two voters in Knowle who would receive the incorrect ballot papers and it
was explained that they would be receiving the correct ballot papers on Friday.

Apart from the one polling district in Knowle Ward, postal votes were sent to
electors on Tuesday 27th April, within the scope of the published election
timetable.

The Acting Returning Officer briefed Cllr Holland (the agent of Ms Primorolo) on
Tuesday afternoon – but this was not arranged and happened because they met
at the Council House.

The correct postal ballot papers for Lawrence Hill/ Easton and the two correct
postal ballot papers for Knowle were delivered to the Council House at noon on
Friday and were courier delivered on the Friday afternoon to the voters.

At the postal vote opening on Saturday 1st May returned postal ballot papers
were received for Bristol East from voters in Bristol West. These voters were
written to on Tuesday 4th May and their options explained (it was a bank holiday
on Monday 3rd May). Election staff agreed to work through Saturday in order to
deal with any problems – election agents were informed.

A press release was issued on Tuesday 4th May emphasising that poll cards
were not required to vote and requesting that any postal vote be submitted, or
delivered to Electoral Services or handed in to a polling station on election day.
The Acting Returning Officer gave an interview to Star Radio on Wednesday
emphasising these points.

The marked postal vote register produced by Opt2Vote shows that 74% of the
postal ballot papers were returned from Lawrence Hill/Easton as against a range
in the other wards from 76% (Filwood) to 91% (Henleaze). Thus it could be
argued that the potential “lost” votes range from 2% of the ballot papers to 17%
i.e. from 48 to 405

Bristol City Council Page 11 5/26/2010

The reasons why people failed to submit the correct ballot will be varied. Some
people will have been confused; some people would have gone on holiday and
so on.

The majority in Bristol West was 11,366.

Why it went wrong. The cause of the mistake can only be conjectured at the
moment. The accuracy of the information submitted by the election staff has
been checked – and there were no problems there. It seems from discussions
with Northgate that the most probable explanation is that the software system
overrode the correct information and replaced it with the ward boundaries, which
existed prior to dissolution of Parliament. Although the proposed boundary
changes were known for a number of years, the formal change of boundaries
only takes place at the dissolution of Parliament.

It might be argued that greater checks should have been made of the ballot
papers but unfortunately the 50 proofs provided by Opt2Vote did not contain
errors and did not provide sufficient constituency coverage.

How to make sure that this does not happen again. There will be a
comprehensive review with Northgate to discover what precisely went wrong and
systems introduced both at a software level and a manual checking level to
ensure that postal ballot papers are accurate.

Possible solutions: Ensure that the software system is fit for purpose, that
there is adequate monitoring of data produced and review deadlines with
contractors.

The move of a parliamentary counting centre

What went wrong: The Bristol North West counting centre was to be at Henbury
Leisure but on 22nd April the Acting Returning Officer decided to move it to
Ashton Gate. This is outside the constituency and the late move gave concern to
all interested parties.

Why it went wrong: The Henbury Leisure Centre was chosen on the basis that
it was the largest venue that could be found within the constituency. It also
allowed excellent access and parking facilities.

On 23rd April it was discovered that this site was limited to around 200 people for
health and safety reasons. The potential number of people at the count centre

Bristol City Council Page 12 5/26/2010

could have exceeded 450 (including candidates, agents counting agents and
staff). This number of people, plus an allowance for circa 50 x 6ft tables &
upwards of 80 ballot boxes, plus sacks of unused materials, meant that a new
site had to be chosen.

Ashton Gate was selected – It had been used in the European Elections in 2009.

There was no consultation with agents on this. However there was a need to act
with speed given that there was only a small time before the election. The time
spent to seek other sites would have meant other tasks could not be undertaken.

Complaints were received about the late change of venue and the hope
expressed that a site could be found in Bristol North West.

It is accepted that there should have been better communication with candidates
and agents about this.

It was a mistake to select Henbury without first confirming that it was of sufficient
size.

What should happen in the future: Counting centres must be selected if

possible within constituency and which are fit for purpose (including size, any
health and safety issues etc). Alternative counting centres should be identified if
for any reason the original choice becomes unavailable (if practicable).

Communication with the Returning Officer

What went wrong: The Lord Mayor and the High Sheriff decided that they
would like to pay a visit to all of the counting centres on election night. However,
the Lord Mayor was not informed of the change of counting centre from Henbury
to Ashton Gate and therefore was driven to Henbury and spent time there before
discovering that it had moved.

Why it went wrong: The decision to move the counting centre took place on 22nd
April 2010 and no one remembered to tell the Lord Mayor.

What should happen now: An apology should be sent to the Lord Mayor and to
High Sheriff.

In future if there are last minute changes then all who have entrance tickets must
be informed.

Bristol City Council Page 13 5/26/2010

 The Publication of some Postal Vote Data

What went wrong?

Kerry McCarthy (the Labour Party candidate for Bristol East) put information on
her twitter page about the ‘results’ of the postal vote opening of 29th April. Ms
McCarthy informed the Acting Returning Officer of her actions (on the afternoon
of the 29th April) and confirmed that the data had been removed shortly after
publication.

The Acting Returning Officer referred the matter to the police that afternoon. It is
the responsibility of the police to investigate criminal allegations.

Electoral Services were inundated with phone calls and e-mails and letters.

The Parliamentary Counts (and verification of local wards)

Bristol West and Bristol East were expected to finish their parliamentary counts
and local verification by 3am. Bristol North West and Bristol South were
expected to finish their parliamentary counts and local verification by 4am as they
also had 9 local wards to verify. Bristol North West and Bristol South both
declared at approximately 5.30am.

What went wrong – Bristol North West Count – handed in ballot papers

There was a problem with the way in which late handed in postal ballot papers
were dealt with. They should have been verified and placed in the ward ballot
boxes. However, whilst they were verified properly the late handed in postal
ballot papers were not placed into the relevant ward ballot boxes. Instead the
postal ballot papers were placed in envelopes and placed in the Henleaze box-
the details of this problem is dealt with in the section concerning the Local
Election Counts.

What went wrong – Bristol South Count Venue:

The Bristol South Count took place at Merchants Academy. This was the first
general election count for the DARO.

The DARO had organised the European Verification for the European Parliament
election in the same venue in June 2009, and was familiar with the venue.

Electoral Services booked the venue and the DARO liaised with the venue in the
month running up to the election. The DARO visited the centre on Monday 3rd

Bristol City Council Page 14 5/26/2010

May 2010 where she met with the contact person on behalf of the facility to
discuss final arrangements.

The DARO also sent a number of follow up e-mails including one to the
Merchant’s Academy liaison person confirming the need for a PA system.

The facility had agreed to provide a PA system, and live BBC TV in a cinema in
the room next door, with tables for agents, counters and media to use.

The DARO arrived at the count on 6th May and neither the TV feed nor the PA
System was working.

The DARO was provided with a megaphone to communicate with the room, but
this was inadequate as only people in the direction of the megaphone could hear
what was being said. It was also extremely cumbersome and heavy. The
agents and candidates and party representatives were very unhappy because
there was inadequate communication about the process that was happening i.e.
which ballot boxes were verified when.

There was no one available from the venue to sort out these problems as the
only facility person on site was outside directing traffic. The DARO asked the
police to direct the traffic and at 11pm rang Electoral Services management and
asked for back up. The Acting Returning Officer advised the DARO try to
communicate in the first instance with the agents, which she did. Another
Electoral Services Officer arrived and liaised with the venue, while the DARO
continued running the count.

At 1am there was a PA system and clear communication with the room
commenced. A radio was later put in the cinema room for agents and
candidates to hear countrywide results.

The size of the venue proved also to be too small for the number of people
attending, and it was hard for example to see the votes being placed on the
count table. Because of the problems with the Hengrove verification (see below)
and the size of the venue insufficient management was given to ensure that the
placing of counted ballot papers were placed in trays in an expeditious and
efficient manner. This meant that for some time the table adjacent to the
candidate trays was overburdened with ballot papers.

Why it went wrong - Bristol South Count Venue:

There was no one at Merchants Academy capable of sorting out the PA system
or TV feed and there was no one to liaise with as the only person present was
directing traffic. There is an issue as to whether this site has the capability (even
with best management practice) to deal with a general election count.

Possible solutions - Bristol South Count Venue:

Bristol City Council Page 15 5/26/2010

There should be a written statement of agreement made with parliamentary
count venues to ensure that adequate facilities are provided on the night. A
possible alternative venue considered in future.

What went wrong - Verification of Hengrove local election count

The Hengrove ward verification could not be completed. This caused delay to the
parliamentary count because of a diversion of resources. The details of this are
set out under the Local Election Counts section below.

The Bristol South declaration was not made until 5.35am.

What went wrong – Bristol South – after verification Bishopsworth papers

in Bedminster ballot box

At the end of the Bristol South count, i.e. at approximately 5.30am, count staff
were directed to put local ward ballot papers in to the minimum number of ballot
boxes for each ward. 685 ballot papers for Bishopsworth ward were placed in a
Bedminster ballot box in error. (See the Local Election Count section below) .

Bristol City Council Page 16 5/26/2010

 The Local Election Counts

What went wrong: There were ballot papers in the wrong wards in some ballot
boxes. This meant that the planned counts and declarations had to be altered –
i.e. no declarations until all counts had been finished. Thus there was delay and
uncertainty. Candidates and the media were all present for what had been
planned. The communication of what was happening and why was inadequate.
Understandably candidates and agents and the media became increasingly
concerned and rumours arose of “lost votes” etc, the impression was that there
was a shambles (and as reported in the Evening Post).

Why it went wrong

The intention had been to count the local authority wards on Friday 7th May 2010
commencing at 9am (the first eight wards alphabetically) then at approximately
10am to count the next 8 wards alphabetically and then finally at approximately
11am to count the remaining seven wards. The intention was to declare each
result in the Council Chamber on the web cam at the end of each count.

Ballot papers were securely held at all times either in ballot boxes or in trays in
public view under supervision by Electoral Services staff.

The Returning Officer has discussed in detail the issues set out in this document
with the relevant officers and considered the relevant paperwork including the
verification statements for the North West wards.

The Returning Officer is of the view that the explanation set out below accurately
reflects what took place and does not affect the integrity of the results. In
particular he has no concern about the integrity of the Avonmouth result.

There was space for three counts in the conference room and committee rooms
1,6, 9,15 and the Lord Mayor’s Reception room were also used.

1. Bristol North West wards: Avonmouth, Henbury, Henleaze, Horfield,

Kingsweston, Lockleaze, Southmead, Stoke Bishop, Westbury-on-Trym – the
handed in postal votes.

Postal ballot papers were collected throughout the day from polling stations. The
last collection at approximately 6pm. The postal ballot papers delivered to polling
stations between the last collection and 10pm were placed in an envelope by the
Presiding Officer and taken to the counting station with the ballot box.

The correct procedure was that the envelope would be opened and the number
of postal ballot papers verified and added to the ballot box for that ward. This is
what happened at the Bristol West count, the Bristol South count and the Bristol
East count. This did not happen at the Bristol North West count.

Bristol City Council Page 17 5/26/2010

At the Bristol North West count, the Verification Officers at the Bristol North West
count verified the wards and included the handed in postal ballot papers. The
envelopes were then handed to the Assistant DARO, He placed all the envelopes
into a Henleaze ballot box which was sealed and returned to the Council House
for counting on the Friday morning. NB he should have placed the ballot papers
into the relevant ward ballot box.

The Friday morning count began alphabetically. Hence the Henleaze box was
the 10th box of the morning to be opened. At this point the nine envelopes were
found i.e. the envelopes for each of the nine wards which contained the handed
in postal votes. The Deputy Returning Officer took the nine envelopes and
handed them to an Electoral Services Assistant. She took them into the
Conference Hall and the envelopes were placed into trays for each ward in public
view in the Council House Conference Hall. The Returning Officer requested
that the Electoral Services assistant remain with the trays throughout to ensure
integrity, which did happen.

The Bristol North West late handed in postal votes in envelopes found in the
Henleaze box contained the following number of ballot papers for each ward:
Avonmouth – 50; Henbury 53; Henleaze 79; Horfield 71; Kingsweston 20;
Lockleaze 45; Southmead 32; Stoke Bishop 54 and Westbury-on-Trym 70.

2. Postal Vote Centre Cross-Ward issue

At approximately 9.15am the Deputy Returning Officer at the Bishopsworth count

discovered ballot papers from the Bishopston ward in the ballot box. He
reported the problem to the Returning Officer.

The Returning Officer decided that there was a risk that there had been other
ballot boxes which may contain incorrect ballot papers and so decided that there
should be no declaration of results until all the ballot boxes had been opened and
checked.

The Returning Officer informed the agents and candidates at 9.30am of his
decision. (NB he was not aware at that time of the North West postal vote
problem or of the Bishopsworth ballot paper problem).

The Returning Officer believes that this problem arose because of human error at
the postal vote scanning centre. Postal ballot papers are extracted from the
postal vote envelopes over a period of one week prior to the count. The ballot

Bristol City Council Page 18 5/26/2010

papers are kept face down and are processed to ensure verification of signatures
and dates of birth of the postal voters. The ballot papers are then collated and
placed in the relevant ballot boxes for each ward. The ballot boxes were
arranged alphabetically in the centre of the Conference Hall.

Two officers had the responsibility for placing the ballot papers into the correct
ballot box. They did not arrange for any other person to check whether the
correct ballot papers were being placed into the correct box. With 26,696 local
postal votes returned and 38,231 parliamentary there is the possibility of human
error.

When all the ballot boxes had been opened, it was discovered that there were
misplaced ballot papers in two ballot boxes:
• 165 ballot papers for the Bishopston ward were discovered in the
Bishopsworth ballot box.
• 225 ballot papers for the Brislington East ward were discovered in the
Brislington West box.

The ballot papers were returned to the appropriate counts and were kept under
the supervision at all times by Electoral Services staff.

3. Bristol South – the Bishopsworth Ward ballot papers.

When the Deputy Returning Officer for the Bedminster ward opened the ballot
boxes, he discovered 685 ballot papers for Bishopsworth ward. He handed the
Bishopsworth ward ballot papers to an Electoral Services officer who placed
them in the trays in the Council House Conference Hall. The ballot papers were
kept under the supervision at all times by Electoral Services staff.

The Deputy Acting Returning Officer at the Bristol South count had the
responsibility for verifying and counting the Bristol South parliamentary
constituency ballot papers and verifying the local authority ballot papers for the
following wards - Bishopsworth, Bedminster, Filwood, Hartcliffe, Hengrove,
Knowle, Southville, Whitchurch Park and Windmill Hill.

Verification took place for all wards save Hengrove (see below). NB verification
was accurately completed for all wards and in particular for Bedminster and
Bishopsworth.

At the end of the Bristol South count, i.e. at approximately 5.30am, count staff
were directed to put local ward ballot papers in to the minimum number of ballot
boxes for each ward.

The Returning Officer believes that count staff made a mistake with some

Bristol City Council Page 19 5/26/2010

Bishopsworth papers and placed them into a Bedminster ballot box. The sealed
ballot boxes were returned to the Council House for counting on the Friday
morning.

4. Bristol South - Hengrove Verification

The Deputy Acting Returning Officer at the Bristol South count, had the
responsibility for verifying and counting the Bristol South parliamentary
constituency ballot papers and verifying the local authority ballot papers for the
following wards - Bishopsworth, Bedminster, Filwood, Hartcliffe, Hengrove,
Knowle, Southville, Whitchurch Park and Windmill Hill.

There was a problem with the verification of the Hengrove ward ballot boxes.
The ballot paper account stated 1350 votes in Box 90 HVD. However only 1297
ballot papers were counted on the night.This was checked three times. The
Returning Officer arrived at the counting centre at approximately 3.30am and
discussed the position with the candidates and the agents. He took the decision
to defer verification to Friday morning.

Because of the other problems arising on Friday morning, the Returning Officer
decided to defer verification of the Hengrove ward ballot papers until all the other
ballot boxes had been opened. No ballot papers for the Hengrove ward were
discovered in any other ballot box. However verification of the Hengrove ballot
boxes proved to be straightforward and 1348 ballot papers were counted.

The Communication Failure

Whilst the Returning Officer briefed candidates and agents at 9.30am on Friday
6th May, and spoke to individuals throughout the morning he did not put into place
a structured communications strategy. For example he did not arrange for this
information to be set out in writing on a board and relied solely upon that briefing
and individual briefings – this was a communication misjudgement.

The timing of the counts was adversely affected and although the information
was on the information screens in the foyer of the Council House there was
understandable confusion as to what was happening and when.

Candidates, agents and visitors were therefore left confused and rumours
circulated of ‘lost’ votes.

Bristol City Council Page 20 5/26/2010

The Avonmouth count

The tension and delay in resolution was particularly sharp for the Conservative
and Labour candidates for the Avonmouth ward. This count started shortly after
9am.

When the Avonmouth ballot box was first counted at the Council House by the
team of counters under the supervision of the Deputy Returning Officer
there were 5695 ballot papers accepted and 42 ballot papers rejected i.e.
5737 ballot papers were counted from the ballot box. The amount in the
box should have been 5789 (i.e. the verified number) or at least very close
to that number. Thus there was a discrepancy of 52 ballot papers (5789
-5737)

The Deputy Returning Officer says that she might have told candidates and
agents that there were 32 missing ballot papers.

The system of resolution was that any discovered ballot papers were stored in
open in the conference hall and that the finalisation of the count then took place
in sequence, The first finalisation was for the Avonmouth ward and this began at
approximately 1.25 pm. The Returning Officer and a colleague counted the
remaining papers and there was an equality of votes necessitating a full recount.

The Avonmouth count was not declared until after 4pm. There were further
recounts, with new counters and with all ballot papers considered –including all
previously rejected ballot papers.

The result was finally determined by lot.

It should be emphasised here that the Returning Officer is satisfied as to the

integrity of this result.

A) Statements from the verification officer and the Assistant

DARO at the North West Counting station confirm that the
Postal votes brought to the count were properly verified
and the correct figure of 50 is reported in the Verification
and Result Statement.
B) The Assistant DARO confirms that he placed the 50 ballot
papers in the postal vote envelope and (with the other eight
postal vote envelopes) placed it into a ballot box which was
then sealed for return to the Council House (this was the
Henleaze ballot box).
C) The Deputy Returning Officer at the Henleaze Count
confirms that he opened the ballot box in view of
candidates and agents and discovered the 9 envelopes
D) The Deputy Returning Officer confirms that he gave these

Bristol City Council Page 21 5/26/2010

 envelopes to an Electoral Services Officer.
E) The Electoral Services Officer confirms that she received
the nine envelopes and these were then them in trays in
open view in the Conference Hall
F) The Returning Officer confirms that he counted these ballot
papers in front of the candidates and agents in the
Conference Hall. These papers were then added to the
ballot box
G) There is therefore a clear audit trail of the 50 ballot papers
H) Candidates and agents closely observed the process of the
recount
I) The Verification and Result Statement shows the
calculations before the 50 ballot papers were added, and
after they had been added – and the figures reconcile

3) What should happen at future elections?

a) The Handed in Postal vote problem: this was a human error. There was
perhaps a failure to properly train, and a failure to ensure that instructions were
given in writing and a failure to check that the ballot papers had been placed into
the correct ballot boxes

b) The Postal Vote Cross – Ward issue

There are various options to consider
a) There could be a check by another officer before the ballot papers are put
into the boxes – but there still remains the possibility of a ballot paper
going into the wrong box
b) It is accepted that there will always be the risk of human error here and so
a change of practice could take place where no declaration is made until
all ballot boxes have been opened and counted or some other system.
c) There should be a review of what happens at the other core cities. If there
is a way of ensuring the absolute integrity of each ballot box at the postal
ballot paper opening then this should be considered. NB the importance of
ensuring that every single paper is accounted for is reinforced by the
Avonmouth result
d) The Bishopsworth ward ballot paper issue. There should be a check on
officers when they are minimising the number of ballot boxes. Or
consideration should be given to returning all the ballot boxes to the
Council House

c) The Hengrove Verification Problem. The same counters were used and
appear to have repeated the errors in calculation made at the first attempted
verification. In the case of a recount then a different set of counters should be
used. There are issues around the selection of counters generally

Bristol City Council Page 22 5/26/2010

 d) The Communication Failure – there should be a communication plan put
into place, which would detail how issues or problems would be
communicated.

This report is a contribution to the investigation and therefore it would be

presumptuous and wrong-headed to presume that the recommendations and
conclusions are anything other than preliminary. What should happen at future
elections will in part be determined by the results of the independent review.

Stephen McNamara
Acting Returning Officer and
Returning Officer

17th May 2010

Bristol City Council Page 23 5/26/2010