Postal Vote Monitoring, Email Sent to Helen Briggs Returning Officer Rutland County Council
Dear Mrs Biggs,
I note your request for me not mention the rubbish issue again.
Despite you attempting to assure me and the others your
procedures are fool proof, it should be noted that we
observed this was not true.
We noted the discrepancy of 18 envelopes at the end
of the session. If we had not asked for the number
at the beginning of the session and again at the end your
error would have gone unnoticed.
Also we noticed the printing error on
which you describe as a second batch of postal votes
sent out, which stops your staff from sorting the votes into
wards, they are required to open and remove them from
envelopes at the first stage preparation.
Before Mrs Mogg disposed of the outer envelopes
I noted she checked each envelope was empty
before disposing of them.
Mrs Baker did not do this, she turned her back
on me and fanned through the envelopes. She
became very annoyed when I asked to see the
envelopes, and asked for them to be checked in the same
way as done by Mrs Mogg. She waved the wad of envelopes
at me and said you can see them now and then
said I shall do them as efficiently as Mrs Mogg.
She continued to rather carelessly fan through
them before throwing them in the bin.
When I arrived at 11.00 am along with another
agent your staff were already sat at tables opening
envelopes that had been through stage one prep.
When I first questioned Mrs Mogg as to why this
had happened she denied it had happened, then
she realised another person apart from myself
had witnessed this and she said this had happened
because she did not want staff sitting around doing
nothing. This is unacceptable. You were late so you
had to investigate, I can not understand why you
find this acceptable that some Stage one prep was completed
before Candidates and agents who are entitled to monitor
had arrived this should not happen before we are let into
the premises.
You or your staff are also failing to give clear
announcements required at each stage, for example
when envelopes were counted we had to ask for the number
and there was no notification of the numbers verified.
Also at two points loose verification forms were
found by staff in bundles, which had not been
recorded on the front slip.
At another point a number of votes were found in
a bundle ready for scanning, they were in the wrong
ward bundle. I wonder why the member of staff
who was responsible for checking the numbers and
ward before this stage did not spot such an obvious error.
It is very clear to me and others you and your staff
do tolerate any form of scrutiny. This is typical
of Rutland County Council and was proved in court.
Also will you and your staff stop treating me like
a school boy. The candidate I represent tells me
through another agent.
Mrs Moggs called him after Wednesdays opening
to report I had been a good boy?
A short while later he received a telephone call
from you complaining about me reporting my
findings on my blog. He is not responsible for my
blog or it content or in fact any of my actions. I request
you refrain from calling this busy man and only
call him if I had broken the law.
From
Martin Brookes
Dear Mrs Biggs,
I note your request for me not mention the rubbish issue again.
Despite you attempting to assure me and the others your
procedures are fool proof, it should be noted that we
observed this was not true.
We noted the discrepancy of 18 envelopes at the end
of the session. If we had not asked for the number
at the beginning of the session and again at the end your
error would have gone unnoticed.
Also we noticed the printing error on
which you describe as a second batch of postal votes
sent out, which stops your staff from sorting the votes into
wards, they are required to open and remove them from
envelopes at the first stage preparation.
Before Mrs Mogg disposed of the outer envelopes
I noted she checked each envelope was empty
before disposing of them.
Mrs Baker did not do this, she turned her back
on me and fanned through the envelopes. She
became very annoyed when I asked to see the
envelopes, and asked for them to be checked in the same
way as done by Mrs Mogg. She waved the wad of envelopes
at me and said you can see them now and then
said I shall do them as efficiently as Mrs Mogg.
She continued to rather carelessly fan through
them before throwing them in the bin.
When I arrived at 11.00 am along with another
agent your staff were already sat at tables opening
envelopes that had been through stage one prep.
When I first questioned Mrs Mogg as to why this
had happened she denied it had happened, then
she realised another person apart from myself
had witnessed this and she said this had happened
because she did not want staff sitting around doing
nothing. This is unacceptable. You were late so you
had to investigate, I can not understand why you
find this acceptable that some Stage one prep was completed
before Candidates and agents who are entitled to monitor
had arrived this should not happen before we are let into
the premises.
You or your staff are also failing to give clear
announcements required at each stage, for example
when envelopes were counted we had to ask for the number
and there was no notification of the numbers verified.
Also at two points loose verification forms were
found by staff in bundles, which had not been
recorded on the front slip.
At another point a number of votes were found in
a bundle ready for scanning, they were in the wrong
ward bundle. I wonder why the member of staff
who was responsible for checking the numbers and
ward before this stage did not spot such an obvious error.
It is very clear to me and others you and your staff
do tolerate any form of scrutiny. This is typical
of Rutland County Council and was proved in court.
Also will you and your staff stop treating me like
a school boy. The candidate I represent tells me
through another agent.
Mrs Moggs called him after Wednesdays opening
to report I had been a good boy?
A short while later he received a telephone call
from you complaining about me reporting my
findings on my blog. He is not responsible for my
blog or it content or in fact any of my actions. I request
you refrain from calling this busy man and only
call him if I had broken the law.
From
Martin Brookes
