A blog about things that interest me, politics, news, media, architecture, development, environment, local history, secularism, web, dublin ireland, tara

Contact me at expectationlost@gmail.com

Wednesday, 30 May 2018

Constitutional Convention and Citizens Assembly Polling Company Recruitment standards

Before suggesting new citizen's assemblies / constitutional conventions shouldn't we get answers on the lax recruitment standards used for them, a few examples below.

Constitutional Convention

A women called "Louise from D12" rang up RTE's LiveLine in February 2013 to discuss the Women in the Home debate and casually admitted (at ~24ms) that a friend that works for the company recruited her, and did so because she knew she would fill out the survey, because she had done surveys with her before and she fit a demographic, considering the rules of selection required a recruiter to start at a randomly selected house, what are the chances she was following the rules or just got lazy.

There were multiple versions of the convention membership list as people dropped out and others were added and I have not found a Louise ? Dublin 12 in any of the lists I have, but there is a Yvonne X Dublin 12. A woman called Yvonne spoke on RTE 's Liveline during April 2013 who joked about the Chair Tom Arnold calling her Louise and who Joe Duffy described as the only person to speak publically about the Constitutional Convention. So this is obviously the same person.

It was a different polling company to the one use for the Citizen's Assembly, but same lack of standards, I looked and couldn't find an ethical code for market research satff.

For the constitutional convention a married couple and some neighbours were chosen to be members which doesn't seem very random or demographically spread.

Concern as couple and set of neighbours are 'randomly selected' for constitutional body Independent.ie Fionnan Sheahan February 16 2013

It interesting that this was added to the Citizens Assembly methodology

Interviewers selected a start address at random within the DED allocated to them. They then tried to complete interviews at every nth house within that specific location. Within each household a random selection process was used to identify the person to try and recruit if more than one person was available.
 Direct applications from members of the public to take part in the Assembly were not accepted, as the members of the Assembly had to be chosen at random to ensure a completely unbiased approach and be broadly representative of all citizens using demographic variables as reflected in the Census. Similarly, interviewers were not allowed to recruit friends or family together.

Seems like a direct attempt to address the issues highlighted in that article but they havn't addressed the issue of a recruiter using people they've surveyed before as I highlight above.

Citizen's Assembly

Statement from the Citizens’ Assembly re issue with the recruitment of some replacement members in December 2017/January 2018
RED C Internal Audit

REDc were asked to recruit 13 more people after drop outs before the referenda session and turns out one recruiter was having trouble recuiting people so asked his family and friends to suggest people and then rang them rather then do it by random door knocking as per the rules of the recruitment, he recuited 7 people in this improper way. So the close votes for the referenda session are being deemed invalid.

REDc say they checked and said all previous recruitments were correct so previous sessions such as abortion not affected...

I don't know how the problem wasn't spotted when there is supposed to be as RED C state "a secondary validation screening process to double check that those who had been recruited were a. definitely happy to take part and b. were recruited as prescribed".
REDc follow-up validation questionnaire

I asked the Citizens Assembly about this and they justed quoted the report I had already read back at me,
In response to your specific query, I refer to section 8 on page 14 of the Audit Document, specifically point (g) under the heading "Audit Response" . I include the full text of point g below for convenience:

"g) The verification documents show that a full and proper verification procedure was initiated and completed with each of the seven members, but the responses given by each did not point to the irregularity of recruitment which has since been identified."

I hope this answers your query.
No it doesn't, how is that they asked these people about how they were recruited and none said they contacted first by phone which is what this suspended recruiter did, (not by a door knock) against the rules of the recruitment process. Did the recruiter tell all 7 to lie to the next REDc employee to call them about how they were first contacted but 1 of them forgot to lie to the secretariat at the meeting?

Their audit says,
This came to light in final checks conducted by the Secretariat among new members attending their first meeting on the 13th & 14th January 2018, when one replacement member stated that recruitment had been initiated by telephone rather than face to face.
So secretariat had suspicions on the day but let the people continue (otherwise the meeting would have to have been cancelled?).

It was reported at the time the recruiter directly involved was suspended, would like update on the disciplinary procedure.
Recruiter for Citizens Assembly suspended after replacement members enlisted through personal contacts and not randomly Irish Independent Allison Bray February 21 2018

Theres long been criticism of pollling, thats its often done by people ringing their mates to fill a quota and here we have that exact thing happening...

Links/Sources
RTE Liveline: The Citizens' Assembly 25/04/2017
RTE Liveline: The Citizens' Assembly 28/05/2018
Manner in Which Refenda are Held

No comments: