MAJOR payouts to council chiefs for overseeing elections must be better justified or overhauled, electoral law experts have claimed.
Calling for further transparency in the payments made to returning officers, a Holyrood inquiry into the system was told there were issues of public confidence around the fees which were at risk of undermining faith in the democratic process.
But MSPs were also warned that any push to make the system more open were in danger of being turned into a "witch hunt", with council chief executives put under pressure to either accept or give away the cash.
They were also cautioned on simply pushing for reform of the system on the basis of public disquiet over levels of payments.
The Herald revealed earlier this year how pay-outs to returning officers had exceeded £1million in just two years, with several of Scotland's 32 council chiefs collect tens of thousands on top of their salaries for overseeing May's Holyrood election and European Union referendum a few weeks later.
After just 18 months at the helm of the country's biggest council, Glasgow's chief executive banked £75,000 over and above her £160,000 wages by the conclusion of the Brexit poll.
There have also been accusations of council chiefs topping up their final salary pension pots by retiring after an election when their earnings are boosted by returning officer duties.
At today's meeting of Holyrood's local government and communities committee, academics and campaigners told MSPs that while returning officers were key to the electoral process there was a lack of transparency around the whole system, who received what level of payments and how the cash was used.
The SNP's Kenny Gibson said he had been aware that when a councillor in Glasgow, chief executives would retire after an election as their fee would get added to their final salary pension.
He added: "We're not talking about a one-off payment. This is a significant amount of money which the taxpayer funds for a number of years and that can't be justified."
Amongst those giving evidence was Navraj Singh Ghaleigh, a senior Lecturer at Edinburgh University specialising in electoral law. He warned committee members they had to see the returning officer as performing a statutory role which was independent from their chief executive's job.
But Mr Ghaleigh added: "The system needs better justified and if that justification isn't forthcoming then it has to change. Justification has to be the starting point for any review."
Responding to Mr Gibson he added: "I have been on public record previously about this. There is a serious risk that goes to the question of public confidence in the system. Around the structure and the rates I would be in agreement that there needs to be a reconsideration."
Tory Graham Simpson said returning officers were already "very very well remunerated people and in the eyes of the public this is part of their job", adding that the fee was a "bonus".
Dr Toby James, a senior lecturer in UK politics at the University of East Anglia, said he agreed "it makes sense to review these fees being paid"!, adding that he hoped it could "kick off a conversation across the UK".
He added: "Transparency could happen very quickly at a low cost and provide us with the information needed for a wider review. But it's worth stressing that a review into the fees shouldn't be the only area looked that. There are a lot of pressures (running an election) going on underneath."
Jonathan Shaffi, of the Electoral Reform Society, said returning officers should be "ambassadors for the electoral system" but that this couild be undermined by both the level of and lack of transparency around the payments.
Committee chairman, the SNP's Bob Doris, said the recommendations could be later fed into the Scottish Government's plan to bring forward an election bill within the current parliament.
Representatives of the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers, the Electoral Management Board, council umbrella group Cosla and the Association of Electoral Administrators and Returning Officers will appear before the committee next week.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel