SLIGHT TO ELECTORAL OFFICER PRESENTS A RISK
Voting reform referendum is looming without a steady hand to guide process
Late last year B.C.’s chief electoral officer, Keith Archer, learned that if he wanted a second term as the independent watchdog on elections, he would need to reapply for the job and take his chances alongside other prospective candidates.
The news was communicated to Archer on behalf of an all-party committee of the legislature, charged with unanimously recommending a candidate to fill the position that runs through two provincial elections plus one year.
Archer must have been taken aback by the “offer.”
The former political scientist from Alberta took on the job at Elections B.C. in 2011 at the end of a period of turmoil. The B.C. Liberal government of the day chose not to reappoint his predecessor and instead pressed into service one of the legislative clerks as interim electoral officer.
Through almost seven years at Elections B.C., Archer presided over two provincial elections, expanded access to the voters’ list and the ballot box, and helped reverse a decline in voter turnout, all with minimal controversy.
Rightly thinking he’d done a good job, he also knew that when independent officers approach the end of their terms, it is not uncommon for the selection committee to begin deliberations by offering reappointment to the incumbent.
Since that didn’t happen here, perhaps someone on the committee was unhappy with his work. Or, with Elections B.C. heading into an era of major changes, the committee as a whole might be looking for someone new. Either way, Archer would have to be chosen unanimously over all contenders.
After thinking it over, the 62-year-old decided it was time to move on. He made a final, constructive submission to the legislative finance commission earlier this month, and issued a no-hardfeelings set of recommendations for further improvements in the elector process.
He’d encourage young people to get ready to vote by registering them as 16- and 17-year-olds. The voters’ list would be improved by giving Elections B.C. access to information held by other public bodies, such as the health authorities.
B.C.’s innovative voteanywhere program would be expanded to allow on-thespot printing of absentee ballots in all voting stations, eliminating write-ins. Archer also thinks voter engagement and turnout would be improved by expanding the four weeks between the election writ and voting day by another five to 10 days.
His final day as chief electoral officer is May 31. For a smooth transition, the legislature — acting on the unanimous recommendation of the selection committee — needs to name a successor when it convenes May 28 for the final scheduled week of the spring session.
The timing matters because Archer’s successor as chief electoral officer will be immediately plunged into preparations for the fall referendum on electoral reform.
The ballot-by-mail looms as controversial because the New Democrats want a “yes” vote in favour of proportional representation and are doing what they can to stack the deck.
The party president has been lobbying his own government for a ballot that would say as little as possible about the system that would be brought in, leaving it to a hand-picked panel to decide after the fact.
Plus the premier has named as the supposed “neutral arbiter” of the process, Attorney General David Eby, one of the most effective and unabashed partisan politicians on the government side.
Given the government’s determination, it would have been reassuring to have the experienced hand of Keith Archer as guardian of the fairness of the process.
Instead someone else will be at the helm of Elections B.C., with little time to get on top of things before they begin mailing out the ballots in the fall. (The voting must be completed by the end of November.)
As to how it happened that the selection committee chose to, in effect, ease Archer out of office, I sought explanations this past week, but didn’t get very far.
The most telling comment came from Adam Olsen, MLA for Saanich North and the Islands and the Green representative on the committee. He confirmed it was a committee decision to seek outside applications, then added in all innocence “isn’t that the way it is always done?”
No, it is not. On the contrary, when an independent officer has done a good job, the usual practice is ask if he or she is interested in reappointment, and if they are, make it happen.
Examples include the reappointment of Stan Lowe to a second term as police complaints commissioner, the reappointment of Merit Commissioner Fiona Spencer to a second and later a third term, and the decision by the Liberals and New Democrats to unanimously support Mary Ellen TurpelLafond for a second term as representative of children and youth.
The Greens, as relative newcomers to the legislature, wouldn’t have known the precedents. But the New Democrats and B.C. Liberals, each with two members on the committee, must have recognized the significance of the deliberate slight to Archer.
When I sought out the government and Opposition house leaders Thursday, neither shed much light on what happened. Liberal Mary Polak said she didn’t know. New Democrat Mike Farnworth said only that the committee lacked “unanimity” on reappointing Archer, but declined to identify the holdout or holdouts.
In any event, it is too late to do anything about it. But in my view, the all-party committee unwisely risked putting Elections B.C. in unproven hands on the eve of the coming referendum on electoral reform.
When an independent officer has done a good job, the usual practice is ask if he or she is interested in reappointment, and if they are, make it happen.