Guidelines for Understanding, Adjudicating, and Resolving Disputes in Elections √ Procedural clarity: The established procedures for the election complaints authority should be clear about the rules for filing an action and provide unambiguous definitions of standing and burdens of proof for specific allegations. √ Legitimacy: If an election complaints authority functions well, issues clear reports of just decisions, applies proper sanctions and reports serious cases for prosecution, its own record will establish the public respect that is the best support of independence. This reflects back to the reporting and public information role the key permanent staff can play between elections. √ Continuity in non-election years: The function of the permanent staff between elections should be to complete and publish the records of the determination of complaints in the past election; review and improve procedures and systems to deal with complaints; participate in public information programs on elections; keep informed on changes in the election process; administer occasional maintenance training for the temporary staff they plan to bring back for subsequent elections; and prepare for subsequent elections. √ Judicial experience of members: The complaints adjudication process is essentially a judicial assessment and determination. The experience of a judge or possibly a senior lawyer is highly and probably uniquely relevant to the task. A panel of judges, retired judges or senior lawyer will ensure that key aspects of the determination are professionally addressed. √ Witness testimony: There is a tendency for political party officials to submit complaints on the basis of party agents’ reports. The law, regulations or procedural rules should be clear that the election complaints authority must receive, directly and in person, the evidence of the person who witnessed the offense against the law or the violation of a regulation that founds the complaint, or who has personal knowledge to support the challenge to a candidate. A second hand report from a party official is hearsay and cannot be subjected to questioning. 128