Survey of Official Agents following the 43^rd General Election - I. Detailed findings

Printable PDF version

A. Information about Official Agents

1. If this was the first time serving as an OA

Two-thirds of OAs in the survey were first time agents.

Two-thirds of the Official Agents of the 43^rd General Election held October 21, 2019 were acting in that capacity for the first time; one-third had acted as an agent in a previous general election.

The profile of first-time official agents is generally quite consistent across the country, with a few variations. There is a variation by age, with those under age 35 being the most likely to be first time agents (86%), and those age 55 and over being the least likely (62%). The following are also more likely to be first time agents:

• Those who work full time (74%, vs. 62% of retired OAs)
• Those who were OAs for one candidate (70%, vs. 39% who acted for more than one)
• Those who later in the survey say their campaign did not file an external auditor's report (75% vs. 63% who filed)

It should be noted that having a majority proportion of first time OAs suggests there may be an issue with the amount or type of work required of those undertaking the position. This is confirmed in the comments a number of OAs made at the end of the survey, regarding the large workload, complexity, frustrations with the EFR software, and suggestions that the position may be more suited to accounting professionals than community volunteers.

2. Number of candidates supported

The vast majority of agents supported a single candidate.

Over nine in ten OAs acted on behalf of one candidate for the 43^rd GE.

A strong majority of respondents across the country report they were the OA for a single candidate, from 86 percent in Alberta to 96 percent in B.C. This proportion is marginally higher among first time OAs (96% vs. 87% who had served as an agent before).

The few OAs who acted for more than one candidate were asked, for the purposes of completing the survey, to consider their experiences representing the candidate with the most complex reporting requirements.

3. If candidate was in a nomination contest

One-third of candidates supported by OAs in the survey were in a nomination contest.

One-third of OAs report their candidate took part in a nomination contest prior to running as a candidate, over half said they did not, and one in ten are unsure.

Having a candidate who took part in a nomination campaign is generally similar across the country, but lowest in Quebec (24%). It is similar across most subgroups of the OA population.

4. If OA acted as financial agent for the candidate's nomination campaign

One-third of OAs acted as the financial agent for their candidate's nomination contest.

Among those whose candidate participated in a nomination contest, one-third acted as their financial agent; six in ten did not. The proportion is similar across this subpopulation of OAs.

B. Getting the campaign underway

1. If requirement to open a campaign bank account was clear

Close to three-quarters say the obligation to open a campaign account was very clear.

Nine in ten OAs say the obligation to open a candidate campaign-specific bank account was at least somewhat clear, with the vast majority of these – almost three-quarters – saying it was very clear.

While high proportions across all subgroups indicate this requirement was at least somewhat clear, it is notably higher among those who acted as an OA before (95%), those who later in the survey say they filed an external auditor report (93%) and those who attended training about the return (94%).

2. Difficult aspects of opening a campaign bank account

The most difficult aspects of opening a campaign account were dealing with the bank and sorting out the required documentation.

Over half of OAs describe some kind of difficulty with opening the campaign account. The most common problems mentioned the bank was difficult to deal with, that it was unclear what documentation was required, or that obtaining the needed documentation was challenging. One in ten or fewer mention other issues, such as the bank staff not being prepared, or a having a lack of information on the process. Over four in ten say there were no difficult aspects to opening the campaign account.

In general, the types of difficulties mentioned are similar across the OA population, but there are a few differences:

• Mentioning the bank was difficult to deal with is higher in Alberta, Ontario and Quebec (30% each) than elsewhere, and is also higher among those under age 35 (48%), and decreasing to lowest among those aged 55 and over (21%).
• That it was unclear what documentation was required to open the account is higher among those under age 35 (24%).

C. Completing and submitting the electoral campaign return

1. If OA was official agent at time the electoral campaign return was submitted

Almost all were the official agent at the time the campaign return was submitted.

Almost all of the OAs in the survey were in this position at the time the campaign return was submitted. This is the case across all subgroups of the population.

2. How electoral campaign return was submitted

Six in ten submitted the electoral campaign return via the Political Entities Service Centre (PESC).

Out of five possible methods for delivering the electoral campaign return, over six in ten report using the Political Entity Service Centre (PESC). One-quarter each say they used email or regular mail/courier for at least some portion of the delivery. Very few say they used in-person delivery or a fax.

PESC is the most used delivery method across the country, although four in ten OAs in Alberta and Manitoba/ Saskatchewan also say they used email. Use of the PESC is also higher among those who report that they are employed full time, those who attended training regarding the return, and those who later report the return being easy to complete (although it does not vary by perceived ease of submission).

3. If OA attended training on how to complete and submit the electoral return

Just over four in ten attended training regarding the electoral return.

Those who were OAs when the campaign return was filed were asked if they attended training on how to complete and submit the form. Just over four in ten did, but a majority did not.

Having attended training on form completion and submission is higher in BC (52%) and Manitoba/Saskatchewan (53%, vs. 34% to 45% elsewhere). It is not notably higher among first time OAs (44% vs 42% who were an OA in a previous election).

4. Ease of process of completing or submitting the electoral campaign return

Agents are divided about the ease of completing the return, while just under six in ten agree to some extent it was easy to submit.

Agents were asked to indicate how easy or difficult they found completing the return, and also the process of submitting the return. Opinion is divided regarding form completion, with just under half saying it was at least somewhat easy, and half saying it was at least somewhat difficult. Fewer than one in ten thought return completion was very easy.

Close to six in ten found the process of submitting the return to be at least somewhat easy, while four in ten found it difficult to some extent.

Saying the process of completing the return was at least somewhat easy is similar across the country and most subgroups of the OA population. It is higher among the following groups:

• More experienced OAs (56%, vs. 42% of first time OAs)
• Those filing using PESC (51%)
• Those finding submitting the return easy (70%).

That the process of submitting the return was easy is also generally similar across the country (52% to 61%), although highest in Manitoba/Saskatchewan (70%). It is higher among the following groups:

• Those filing using PESC (58%)
• TThose finding completion of the return easy (84%).

5. Difficult aspects of completing and submitting the electoral campaign return

The most difficult aspects of dealing with the campaign return are the lack of clarity of the completion and submission instructions, and the complexity of the form itself.

OAs were asked to indicate what aspects of dealing with the campaign return (completion or submission) were difficult, if any. Five potential options were provided (shown with asterisks in the table below), and respondents could write in additional issues. About one in four did not indicate any issues.

OAs are most likely to say the instructions for completing or submitting the return were unclear, or that the form was too complex. One-quarter indicate the training on how to complete the return needs improvement. One in ten or fewer mention other issues, with the highest unprompted difficulty being software-related issues, including the EFR being outdated or the website not being user friendly.

As can be expected, mentioning any kind of difficulty is higher among those who say either completing or submitting the return was difficult.

While the difficulties mentioned are quite similar by location and across most subgroups, the following are some notable differences:

• The instructions on how to complete the electoral campaign return were unclear: First time OAs (38% vs. 16% of others).
• The instructions on how to submit the electoral campaign return were unclear: Quebec (40%, vs 23% to 30% elsewhere).
• The form used to complete the electoral campaign return was too complex: Age 55+ (32%), First time OAs (34%), those representing one candidate (31%, vs. 13% 2 or more).
• The training provided on how to complete and submit the electoral campaign return needs improvement: BC (35%), Quebec (30%), filed return via mail/courier (34%), attended training (32%).
• Software issues/EFR outdated/website not user friendly: University degree (13%), candidate not in nomination contest (12% vs. 7% who were), did not file external auditor's report (16% vs. 8% who did file).
• The date by which to submit the electoral campaign return was unclear: Quebec (9%), first time OAs (7%).

D. Electronic Financial Return (EFR)

1. Using the EFR software to prepare the return

Nine in ten used the EFR software to prepare the campaign return.

Almost all OAs used the Electronic Financial Return (EFR) software to complete their campaign return, one in ten did not or could not recall.

Using the EFR to complete the return is the dominant response across the country and across all population subgroups. It is higher among the following groups:

• More experienced OAs (94%, vs. 87% of first time OAs)
• OAs who attended training about the return (96%, vs. 84% who did not attend)
• Those filing using the PESC (97%)
• Those who filed an external auditor report (93%, vs. 83% who did not).

2. Agreement with statements about using the EFR software

Agents are most likely to agree to some extent the instructions on how to find the EFR software were clear, and that the software was easy to navigate.

OAs were asked the indicate their level of agreement with five statements about working with the EFR. Six in ten or more agree with the three positive statements presented: that the instructions on how to locate the software were clear (76% agree); that the software was easy to navigate (65%); and that it was easier to file the financial return this way as opposed to the manual process (60%). Note that one in four were unable to provide a response for this last statement, potentially because there are so many first time OAs who have no experience with manual reporting. However, among those who gave an opinion, eight in ten think it was easier to file with EFR.

Half of OAs agree to some extent the instructions on how to use the software and provide the submission file were not clear, and three in ten agree the software was not easy to install.

Overall agreement with these statements is generally similar across the country and most subgroups of the OAs using the software, with some exceptions. In general, those who say they found either completing or submitting the return easy are more likely to agree with positive statements, while those finding these activities difficult are more likely to agree with the negative statements. Below are the other groups more likely to agree with each statement:

• The instructions provided by Elections Canada on how to find this software were clear: More experienced OAs (82%, vs. 72% of first time OAs)
• The EFR software was easy to navigate: More experienced OAs (73%, vs. 60% of first time OAs)
• It was easier to file the financial return using the EFR software than with the manual process: More experienced OAs (73%, vs. 53% of first time OAs), those supporting two or more candidates (81%, vs. 58% with one candidate), those with a candidate in a nomination contest (67% vs. 57%), those who filed using PESC (61%)
• The instructions on how to use the EFR software and provide the submission file were not clear: Quebec (60%, vs. 43% to 55% of others)
• The EFR software was not easy to install: Manitoba/Saskatchewan (48%, vs. 19% to 36% of others), first time OAs (33% vs. 21%), those representing one candidate (31%, vs. 5%), and those who found the return difficult to complete (36% vs. 23%) or submit (37% vs. 23%).

3. Why EFR was not used to prepare the return

The very few OAs not using the EFR software mostly mention that they preferred to prepare it manually, or that the software could not be installed.

The small number of OAs who did not use the EFR to file the campaign return (n=47) were asked why. They were given six potential reasons (marked with an asterisk in the table below) and allowed to specify others if needed. The main reasons for not using EFR are preferring to prepare the return manually, and technical issues preventing installation of the software. Two in ten or fewer cite the other reasons presented in the survey. Subgroup sizes are too small to permit deeper analysis.

**Note: small base (n=<50); interpret with caution

Fourteen OAs provided other comments. Three indicate the return was prepared by an auditor or accountant. Three mention the EFR software is not compatible with their computers/operating systems. Two either say they did not use technology or had limited access to the Internet. Two indicate having no expenses. One person used their own system in MS Excel. One was not sure. Two other comments indicate issues with the instructions:

• Elections Canada's wording was not very friendly and mostly threatening.
• Would love, love, loved to have done it electronically, rather than manually. Better instruction would be necessary to help.

4. If campaign was required to file an external auditor's report with return

Over seven in ten indicate the campaign was required to file an external auditor's report with the return.

Just over seven in ten OAs say the campaign was required to file an external auditor's report with the electoral campaign return, while two in ten say they were not required to do so, and six percent are not sure.

That the campaign was required to file an external auditor's report is generally similar across most subgroups of the PA population, but higher among the following groups:

• Quebec (81%) and Atlantic region (80%)
• Candidate was in nomination contest (81%, vs. 69% who were not)

5. Ease or difficulty of finding out if auditor's report was required

Most say it was at least somewhat easy to figure out if an auditor's report was required.

Close to nine in ten say it was at least somewhat easy to figure out whether or not an auditor's report was required; only 1 in 10 say that it was difficult.

A majority of OAs, both those who filed an external auditor's report and those who did not, say it was easy to determine if this was required, but those who filed are more likely to say it was very easy (61% vs. 48%).

Saying this aspect was at least somewhat easy is highest among the following groups:

• Age 55 and over (88%)
• University degree (89%, vs. 76% with high school or less)
• Retired OAs (93%)
• More experienced OAs (91%, vs. 83% first time)
• Those who attended training on the return (89% vs,. 83%)
• Those who say completing (92%) or submitting (89%) the return was easy

E. Elections Canada products and services

1. Awareness and use of EC products and services

Of nine products and services, OAs are most likely to report having used the Political Financing Handbook or the 1-800 number, or to have corresponded with EC.

OAs were shown a list of EC products and services and asked to indicate which they had heard of or used. Almost all candidates are either aware of or used at least one (6% did not use any of these, and 3% are neither aware of nor used any). The services with the highest overall awareness (either used or familiar with) are the Political Financing Handbook, correspondence with EC and the Political Entities Support Network toll-free number. Six in ten are aware of or used the in-classroom sessions. Around half report having been aware of or using either the EFR videos or the Political Financing Newsletter. Fewer than half report being aware of or using the other services, with the lowest overall awareness being for the computer lab sessions to close the campaign (six in ten not aware of this resource).

Usage follows a similar pattern to overall awareness. Over eight in ten say they used the Political Financing Handbook, close to seven in ten say they corresponded with EC, and six in ten indicate use of the PESN. One in ten or fewer report using any of the other resources.

Overall awareness (either used or aware of) and actual usage proportions are quite similar across the country and across subgroups of the OA population. Not being aware of most resources is higher among first time agents.

Below are some groups reporting higher actual usage:

• Political Financing Handbook for Candidates and Official Agents: University graduates (87%), more experienced OAs (88%, vs. 81% first time), filed external auditor's report (88% vs. 78%), attended training re return (92% vs. 77%)
• Correspondence with EC: Attended training regarding the return (76% vs. 63%)
• The Political Entities Support Network 1-800 #: Quebec (70%), filed external auditor's report (64% vs. 56%), completing return was easy (65% vs. 58%)
• Political Financing Newsletter: Age 55 and over (35%), retired (41%), more experienced OAs (43%, vs. 26% first time), attended training regarding the return (41% vs. 25%), completing return was easy (38% vs. 25%), submitting return was easy (35% vs. 27%)
• In-Classroom information sessions: BC (41%), age 55 and over (37%), retired (41%), attended training regarding the return (56% vs. 11%), submitting return was easy (35% vs. 27%)
• EFR videos: Single candidate OAs (29%, vs. 12% multiple candidate), attended training regarding the return (41% vs. 17%)
• Political Financing videos ("cartoons"): Single candidate OAs (22%, vs. 7% multiple candidate), used PESC (24%), attended training re return (28% vs. 15%)
• Webex information sessions: Candidate in nomination contest (22%, vs. 15% not in nomination contest), filed external auditor's report (19% vs. 11%), attended training regarding the return (30% vs. 6%)
• Computer lab sessions: BC (20%), Quebec (19%), attended training regarding the return (29% vs. 2%)

2. If EC products and services used were helpful

The Political Financing Handbook, 1-800# and in-classroom sessions are the resources deemed helpful by the highest proportions of users.

Those who used any products were shown a list of the ones they used and asked to indicate which they found helpful. Almost all who used the Political Financing Handbook indicate it was helpful, and around eight in ten using either the Political Entities Support Network 1-800 number or in-classroom sessions report finding them helpful. A strong majority also say either the computer lab sessions, correspondence with EC, the Political Financing Newsletter and the Political Financing cartoons to be helpful. Users are least likely to indicate that the EFR videos or the Webex information session were helpful.

That various resources are helpful is quite similar across the country and among the OA population. In general, first time agents are more likely than those with experience to report resources being helpful. A few notable findings follow:

• Thinking the toll-free number was helpful is higher among Albertans (97%). Three-quarters (74%) of Quebec OAs who used the Political Financing cartoons found them helpful.
• The Handbook is deemed helpful by higher proportions of those with a university degree (93%), more experienced OAs (94%, vs. 89% first time) and those who found the return easy to complete (95%) or submit (94%).
• Those acting for Liberal Party candidates are somewhat less likely than others to say the toll-free number was helpful (70%, vs. 81% to 88% supporting other party candidates).

Agents could also indicate if another resource they used was helpful. Mentions mainly include phone calls to EC, various auditors or accountants, the associated political party and/or previous OAs.

3. Difficult aspects of finding products/services on EC Political Financing website

The main difficulties with the Political Financing website are related to navigation and presentation; training on dealing with the return also may need improvement.

All official agents were asked what, if any, aspects of finding what they needed on Elections Canada's Political Financing pages on its website were difficult. Five potential difficulties were provided (marked with an asterisk in the table below) and agents could write in other challenges they experienced. Three in ten say they experienced no issues. The most mentioned difficulties are that the products for OAs are not clearly presented, and that the site is hard to navigate. Three in ten also think that training for return completion and submission needs improvement. Two in ten say there is too much information on the site, and close to one in ten state the links did not work. Of the volunteered responses, the most mentioned are that the EFR software is out of date or needs improvement, or that the process is complicated.

Reporting at least one difficulty is similar whether or not someone was a first time agent; having no difficulties is higher among men and those reporting either return completion or submission as easy.

The proportions reporting each challenge are quite similar across the country, but OAs in Quebec are the most likely to indicate the products were not clearly presented (45%). Saying that the products are not clearly presented is lower among those with a university degree. Saying that the website is hard to navigate is higher among those who submitted the return by mail or courier (43%).

4. Agreement with statements about the Political Entities Support Network

Two-thirds of OAs strongly agree that the EC employee they dealt with via the PESN was courteous, and a majority agree to some extent with other positive statements about their experience.

Those OAs who indicated they used the Political Entities Support Network (n=366) were asked to indicate their level of agreement with five statements about the service they received. Strong proportions of close to nine in ten or more agree to some extent with all statements. Two-thirds strongly agree the employee with whom they dealt was courteous, and just under half strongly agree that the employees were knowledgeable or that, in the end, they received got what they needed. Just over four in ten agree strongly they received a timely response or that they were satisfied with ease of access to the service.

Strong agreement with these statements is very consistent across the country and most subgroups, but somewhat higher among OAs with university degrees and those who found return submission easy.

5. Wait time for 1-800 number

Two-thirds waited ten minutes or less on the 1-800 number line.

Those OAs using the Political Entities Support Network (1-800 number) were asked to indicate the approximate wait time they experienced before speaking with an EC employee. Two-thirds reached someone in 10 minutes or less (with one-third reporting a wait of three minutes or less), one in ten left a message for a callback, and one-quarter cannot recall.

Reporting a short wait time of three minutes or less is fairly similar by location, but higher in Atlantic Canada than elsewhere (46%). A wait time of three minutes or less is reported in a higher proportion of more experienced OAs (46%, vs. 28% of first time agents) but is fairly consistent by other factors.

6. Agreement with statements about corresponding with Elections Canada

Six in ten strongly agree the response they received by mail or email was courteous, and majorities agree to some extent with other positive statements about their contact with EC.

OAs indicating they corresponded with EC by mail or email (n=415) were asked to indicate their level of agreement with four statements about the service they received. Eight in ten or more agree at least somewhat with each; overall and strong agreement are highest that the response was courteous.

Strong agreement with these statements is statistically similar across the country and most subgroups of the OA population. Strong agreement with all statements is somewhat higher among OAs who say their candidate was not in a nomination contest, and those reporting the return was easy to complete or submit.

7. Other sources used to understand provisions of the Canada Elections Act

Four in ten used other sources to understand provisions of the Canada Elections Act. Most who used other sources turned to the candidate's affiliated party, while a minority sought advice from either an accountant, other official agents or consulted the Act itself.

Four in ten OAs indicate that they consulted sources other than EC to understand what was required under the Canada Elections Act; close to six in ten say they did not, and a small minority of three percent are not sure.

Reporting using sources beyond EC is generally similar across the OA subgroups, but somewhat higher among the following:

• Ontario (47%)
• Those with college or more education (43%, vs. 14% with high school or less)
• Those with one candidate (42%, vs. 27% with more than one)
• OAs who filed an external auditor report (46% vs. 32% who did not)
• Those who attended training on the return (50%, vs., 36% who did not)
• Those who found the return difficult to complete (47% vs. 36% who did not)

Those who report using other resources beyond those provided by EC (n=250) were asked what they used to help them understand what was required. Seven options were offered (marked with an asterisk in the table below) and OAs could specify additional resources if required. The most commonly used resources are the candidate's affiliated political party, an accounting firm or other official agents. One-quarter consulted the Canada Elections Act itself, and two in ten turned to the affiliated electoral district association. Fewer used other resources. The main resource volunteered was auditors (13%).

Some of the subgroups are small and do not permit deeper analysis. Turning to the affiliated political party is highest among OAs in Quebec (77%) and among first time OAs (60%) and those whose candidate was not in a nomination contest (60%).

8. Product and service gaps

The top product and service needs identified are more flexible training availability, the need to provide more examples, providing software updates and simplifying the process.

All OAs were asked if there were other products or services Elections Canada could have provided that would have made serving as an official agent easier. This was an open-ended question with no pre-coded options. One in ten mention a requirement for more flexible training that can be undertaken at any time. Fewer than one in ten mention other individual suggestions, including providing more examples about what expenses to report, updating the software and making it be compatible with a wider range of platforms, simplifying the process and eliminating duplication, and making the EFR more user friendly. One-quarter do not think there are any additional products or services that would help them, and four in ten are unsure.

Mentions are generally similar across the population. Those who say they found the return difficult to complete are more likely than those who found it easy to mention more flexible training or updating software. Wanting additional examples is higher among those acting for one candidate (8% vs. 2%) and those who submitted the return by mail or courier (13%).

F. Post-filing Elections Canada contact

1. If contacted by EC for clarifications or additional information since return was filed

Just under two-thirds of OAs were contacted by EC after filing the campaign return.

Over six in ten OAs were contacted by EC for clarifications or additional information since the filing of the return. That a strong majority were in this position would tend to confirm the impressions indicated by some OAs in other questions, that the process is very complicated and/or that the instructions provided to OAs by EC need refinement.

A majority of OAs in all regions indicated having been contacted following the report submission, although this is lower in Manitoba/Saskatchewan (52%) and Quebec (55%) than elsewhere (61% to 71%). The proportion does not differ substantially by other factors, including whether or not someone was a first time OA or whether they found completing the return easy or difficult. It is lower among those who filed using PESC (60% vs. 69% of others) and among those who were not required to file an external auditor report (38%, bs. 71% who did).

2. How post-filing EC contact was made

Nine in ten who were contacted by EC after the return was filed received an email.

Those who were contacted by EC following their submission of the campaign return (n=375) were asked how this contact was made (OAs could indicate both potential contact methods). Overall, about nine in ten state it was via email (and for 59% contact was only by email), while four in ten say they received a phone call (9% telephone only).

Receiving EC communicating by email is the top response across the country and all subgroups, Subgroup bases can be small for this group, so limited analysis can be done at that level. More experienced OAs are more likely than first time OAs (52% vs. 34%) to have received a telephone call.

3. Agreement with statements about interactions with EC after the return was filed

Majorities agree with each of four statements about their EC interactions after the return was filed. Agreement is highest that the EC employee was courteous, and lowest that they followed up regularly.

Those who were contacted by EC following the return submission were asked to indicate their level of agreement with four statements about this interaction. Two-thirds or more agree to some extent with each statement. Overall and strong agreement is highest that the employee was courteous, and lowest that EC followed up regularly after initial contact.

The statement regarding regular follow-up had one in ten not being sure, which may indicate a short and simple request that did not require much follow-up. When those one in ten are removed and the proportions recalculated, 75 percent agree overall there was regular follow-up, and one-third agree strongly.

Strong agreement with positive statements about EC interactions is generally similar across most subgroups; it is higher among those who report that the return was easy to complete or submit. While overall level of agreement is similar to others, strong agreement with several statements is lower in BC than elsewhere.

G. Closing of the campaign and other comments

1. Ease or difficulty of completing steps for closing the campaign

The easiest aspects of closing the campaign are closing the bank account and disposing of any surplus.

OAs were asked to indicate how easy or difficult they found each of four steps for closing the campaign. The easiest step was closing the campaign bank account, followed by the disposing of any surplus and fulfilling reporting requirements. Just under half found completing and submitting the statement of surplus to be easy to some extent. Around two in ten (22%) did not indicate that any of these tasks was easy.

Three of these statements received relatively high proportions of OAs indicating "not sure,"" two being related to surplus, which the campaign may not have had, and one related to closing the campaign bank account, which could be because some OAs reported in comments that this was not able to be done due to the audit schedule.

OAs in Atlantic Canada are the most likely to indicate closing the campaign bank account was easy, but otherwise the results are quite similar by region. Indicating most tasks were easy is higher among those with university degrees, more experienced OAs, and those who found the return easy to complete or submit.

2. Other comments

Many OAs suggest improvements to the EFR software, a simplified process overall and especially for smaller campaigns, and more expedited auditing and reporting on EC's part to allow for prompt closure.

OAs provided a range of comments when asked if there was anything not covered in the survey they would like to share. While a number mentioned it was an interesting, positive or learning experience, or said good things about the people at EC with whom they dealt, there were a large number of negative mentions about the OA position.

Several provide comments touching on how complicated or time-consuming the position is, how long the entire process takes, or how they will not be doing it again. There were repeated calls to improve the EFR software, which was deemed clumsy, outdated, and not compatible with several platforms. There were comments about how the reporting requirements are overkill for small campaigns, and several mentions about delays on EC's side in completing the final report that prevented closure. There were a few mentions about being told to close the bank account before the final audit was completed, which caused issues when refunds were due. There were also mentions about how a bank accounts should be optional, or that bank accounts should allowed to remain open between elections.

• Previous
• Table of Contents
• Next