SCRUTINEER COMPLAINS

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 524, 29 November 1928, Page 2

SCRUTINEER COMPLAINS

TREATMENT AT CITY ELECTIONS RETURNING OFFICER’S REPLY Complaints as to his treatment as a scrutineer at the poll in the recent City Council by-election. compared with that at the General Election poll on November 14, are contained in a letter to The Sun from “Scrutineer.” “Scrutineer” says that he does not insinuate that the city poll was not conducted fairly, but he says that treatment of scrutineers such as he received is likely to breed distrust among unsuccessful candidates at future polls. The letter is: Sir, — 1 wonder if any of your numerous readers can give me any authoritative information as to the rights of a scrutineer at a local body election and at a Parliamentary General Election? I have been a deputy-returning officer and a scrutineer on numerous occasions, and would like to contrast my experience on the last two polls at which I acted. On Wednesday. November 14, I was acting as a scrutineer at the principal polling-booth for the district. During the hours the poll was being taken 1 sat at the same table as the deputyreturning officer and his poll clerk. All the names of the voters and their numbers on the roll were called out to me, so that I could mark them off. When the poll closed I was allowed to assist in opening the papers and sorting them into heaps for the different candidates, and then 1 was invited to check each bundle, and also the count for each candidate. Afterwards I was invited to sign a form verifying the returning officer’s count. As a contrast to this, I would take the case of a City Council by-election held a week earlier. At one of the polling-booths I acted as scrutineer for one of the candidates. Owing to tlio City Council being unable to supply copies of the roll, it was suggested that I should make a list of the numbers of the people who voted, and so be able to check them off afterwards. The officer in charge of the booth refused to allow me to sit at the same table as the deputy-returning officer?, and requested me to sit at a table behind them. As it was impossible to catch every number that was called out to me by each of four officers, one of them suggested that I should supply them with sheets of paper, and they would jot down the numbers for me. This arrangement was being carried out, but after the rush between 12 and 2 o’clock the officer in charge instructed the other officers to discontinue the practice, as it was not part of their duty—although they said that they did not mind doing it- TU* officer in charge stated that he was acting on instructions from the chief returning officer. On the close of the poll I was forbidden to touch or handle the voting papers in any way whatever. "When I asked to be allowed to see and check each bundle of papers, the officer in charge of ih« booth refused to allow me to do so. 1 told him that I had always been allowed to do so in the past, but he curtly replied, “Well, this is the ftrst time you don’t.” I then called on the other four deputy-returning officers to witness the fact that the officer in charge had refused to allow me to carry out ray duties. This officer then said. “You can stand by and see me count them if you like, but you can’t handle them yourself ” I am not insinuating that the poll was not fairly conducted, but the treatment of scrutineers such as was dealt out to me is likely to breed distrust among unsuccessful candidates at future polls. May I suggest that before another municipal poll taken some of the candidates should seek legal advice as to what are the rights of scrutineers, so that all parties may know where they stand, and there wiil be no misunderstanding before or after the poll. As a matter of comparison may I state the case of the ballot taken by tho City Council to select the member* of the Transport Board? Here the town clerk was appointed scrutineer on the motion of the Mayor, and wa the only person who handled the papers after they had been collected from the councillors who voted. SCRUTINEERON LV ALLOWED TO WATCH When the complaint was referred to the city returning officer, Mr. PNotley, he said that scrutineers had no privileges other than being allowed to be present and to watch. He also points out that considerable difaculty would be experienced at the big municipal elections —such as that hel last year, when there were 61 candidates, excluding Hospital Board an Harbour Board candidates—if earn candidate had a scrutineer. If were all allowed to handle the paper*, i the position would be impossible.