In a report dated May 28 that the Electoral Commission presented to the University Council, it reveals that problems began on May 15 to carry out the elections at the UCV on the scheduled date, since ten days before the information was lost. required for the publication of the final registration and at different times these delays meant the need to defer the date
After the storm that was for the Electoral Commission of the UCV the decision to suspend the process on Friday the 26th in the middle of the day and defer it to Friday the 9th of June, a report dated May 28th presented to the University Council reveals that problems began on May 15th to carry out the elections in the UCV on the scheduled date.
The chronology of events set forth in the Electoral Commission’s report shows that ten days earlier the required information was lost “due to errors made by the support staff hired by the Electoral Commission to verify all the data in the electoral records. This fact resulted in the technical staff of the Commission having to redo all the data and the associated computer processes again, which harmed the subsequent processes”, it is explained in point 3 of the document.
On three consecutive occasions, members of the Commission asked the technical staff if the dimension of the failures could be corrected in the established times to comply with the schedule, or if, on the contrary, it was necessary to reconsider the date and defer before the 26th of May. On all three occasions they answered no and that the problems would be solved as soon as possible.
*Read also: Editorial | The UCV and the shadows of our electoral history
But on Saturday the 20th, six days before the event, the final record had not yet been published. The report details that it was only possible to complete this key stage of the process, on Tuesday, May 23, with the imminent date of the process, so the next step, which was the printing of notebooks and tickets within the corresponding deadlines, was already to the time limit.
From that same day, all the Commission’s personnel were involved in the printing and preparation of electoral cotillions, including minutes, credentials and other material that at some point interrupted the general impression,” the report stated.
On Wednesday, May 24, shortly before leaving to present the report on the process to the University Council, the Commission again consulted about the feasibility of complying with the schedule, “the answer being affirmative, that we could comply with the schedule and the choice”, according to what was stated in the report.
A fly in no man’s land
Despite the fact that in the report, the UCV Electoral Commission confirms its expertise in carrying out “innumerable electoral processes”, the chain of errors and delays heralded a bad outcome, which actually occurred, and no provisions were made in this regard. , so the cause they pointed to was “inadequate monitoring of processes.”
The official response that was reflected in the report is that the members of the Commission “under the principle of good faith carried out by the staff, never had doubts about their work and ability to carry out the process, because they have already executed these procedures in previous elections, without problems. We recognize the inadequate supervision of the processes, derived from the above and from the haste in the times that brought us closer to the day of the election.
The decision to postpone the process for only one hour, announced a few minutes before the scheduled time, evidenced a failure of timely and adequate communication with the actors involved, mainly with the subcommittees, board members, logistics personnel, and campaign teams.
Another aspect that is not clarified in the report is the request of the UCV nuclei in Maracay and Barquisimeto to be excluded from the suspension and keep the votes safe, since the process in these venues could be carried out without setbacks. .
In this sense, the report only briefly expresses “that the electoral processes carried out in the Faculties of Agronomy, Veterinary Sciences, EUS of the Faculty of Humanities and EDU Faculty of Architecture, were carried out without problems”, but it does not provide an answer. on the decision of whether they will be invalidated like the votes that were carried out on the campus of the Ciudad Universitaria de Caracas.
Schedule in we will see
During the session of the University Council held on Monday, May 29, the Commission presented the new schedule in which it was presented on June 9 for the first round and therefore, the date initially scheduled for the second round also moved from June 23 to June 30.
The Electoral Commission presented the report on what happened, on May 26, and explained the necessary requirements to carry out the elections on June 9, where they mentioned the lack of additional resources for the first round of the electoral process.
However, they did not present a clear inventory of the resources available and necessary to carry out the elections, for which reason a technical commission was appointed to evaluate the resources that are available and those that are lacking.
On Wednesday, May 31, a regular session of the University Council will be held to make a decision on the approval of the election schedule presented.
Post Views: 301
