EAC sets the record clear on UPP issue

The following is a statement on United People's Party (UPP) meeting with the selected members of the Electoral Advisory Committee (EAC) and the Director of Elections on Tuesday, September 17, 2002.

MRS. ANTOINETTE Haughton-Cardenas, President of the United People's Party (UPP), continues to recite a litany of misinformation to the media concerning the application of the UPP to the Electoral Advisory Committee (EAC) for the right to appoint scrutineers in the voter registration process that leaves us no alternative but to set the record straight. We have ignored most of this but it is not possible to allow her latest barrage to go unchallenged.

For the benefit of those interested in the facts, they are as follows:

• Following the EAC ruling on August 21 that the wording of the UPP petition did not satisfy the requirements of the Representation of the People's Act (ROPA), Mrs. Haughton-Cardenas, on August 22, requested the return of the sheets bearing the wording and the signatures of the subscribers and was given the same on August 23.
• On granting the request to return the sheets, the Chairman reminded Mrs. Haughton-Cardenas that fresh signatures had to be gathered with respect to a petition with wording that met the requirements of the ROPA.
• On August 27, the UPP re-submitted the exact petition with the same wording and the same signatures that the EAC had rejected.
• Shortly thereafter, the UPP announced and information reached the EAC that the party was collecting fresh signatures to a petition meeting the specifications of the ROPA.
• Because the wording of the first petition did not meet the requirements of the ROPA, the EAC had only counted but did not take a close look at the quality of the information with respect to the subscribers to the petition. However, persons doing the count had raised questions concerning the quality of that information. The EAC therefore decided to take a closer look at the quality of that information upon its re-submission.
• The inspection of the sheets bearing the signatures of the subscribers revealed the following:

a) Of the 51,108 subscribers that were listed, the information with respect to 736 was incomplete.

b) Of the 50,372 subscribers for which there were complete information as required by the ROPA, there was a significant number whose address could not be verified, for example, "Live beside Dell."

c) Of the 1,050 sheets that were submitted, bearing approximately 50 subscribers each, 201 sheets had signatures that appeared to be the same handwriting. This meant that at least 10,000 signatures were in question.

• The assistance of a handwriting expert was therefore sought.
• The handwriting expert was asked to give an opinion with respect to one of the 201 sheets, pulled at random, where all the signatures on that sheet were compared with signatures of persons whose signatures are in the possession of the EOJ. The expert opinion was that none of the signatures of the UPP petition sheet matched the signatures of the same persons in the EOJ records.
• Bearing in mind time and cost, the handwriting expert was asked to examine samples of signature on some of the other 200 sheets suspected of having the signatures signed by the same person. The expert opinion was that 39 different persons had signed the 279 signatures sampled.
• In a nutshell, the findings of the handwriting expert confirmed the suspicion of the persons who examined the entire list of subscribers that a significant number of the signatures submitted were not likely to be originally.
• The meeting of the Selected Members of the EAC and the Director of Elections with the President and Officers of the UPP was most definitely not to reverse or rescind the EAC decision of August 21. The meeting was called primarily to share the findings of the inspection of the sheets of subscribers and to give guidance to the President and Officers of the UPP with respect to the collection of the signatures in support of the new petition. What the EAC wishes to avoid is fraudulent signatures accompanying the submission of a properly worded petition.

The Selected Members and the Director were very disappointed and absolutely flabbergasted that the President of the UPP showed no interest in being guided.

It is totally erroneous and without any factual foundation to imply or allege that the EAC has again turned down the application of the UPP to appoint scrutineers for the Voter Registration Process.

It is also important for the public to understand that the UPP does not need any recognition from the EAC in order to contest the next general election. Further, the EAC has included the UPP in the Election Centre and has obtained funding from the Canadian International Development Agency to train Election Day workers of the UPP and other small parties and independent candidates. Scrutineers play no part in Election Day activities.

Finally, the EAC has no involvement, whatsoever, in the allocation or distribution of cars, with duty concession, to political parties for the upcoming General Election. This is solely the prerogative of the Ministry of Finance.