Elections Commission
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002
City and County of San Francisco
Elections Commission
Approved: March 15, 2006
Minutes of the Meeting at City Hall Room 408
February 15, 2006
1. CALL TO ORDER. President Matthews called the meeting to order at 7:01 pm.
2. ROLL CALL. PRESENT: Commissioners Gerard Gleason, Richard P. Matthews, Sheila Chung (arrived at 7:09 pm), Eric Safire, Jennifer Meek and Michael Mendelson. EXCUSED: Arnold Townsend.
3. Public Comment – Keith McGinnis, State of California Sales Manager for Elections Systems Software (ES&S), said that two of the four members of the selection panel (who were from IT departments) that eventually chose Sequoia over ES&S in the bidding process for the contract evaluated the technical portion of their proposal more highly than Sequoia, and the other members of the panel, (who worked in clerical and administrative positions) scored Sequoia more highly. He told the Commission that ES&S is the only California vendor that is 100% certified for Ranked Choice Voting (RCV). Chris Jerdonek, of Fair Vote, handed out the results of a study he conducted. He said that the turnout of voters in the November 2005 Election was nearly triple the numbers of past elections, and his study concluded that the reason was RCV. Steven Hill spoke regarding his concerns about completing certification of the new voting system and the possibility of using the ES&S system combined with Automark, if necessary.
4. DIRECTOR'S REPORT.
• Budget for Fiscal Year 2006-2007. Director Arntz reported that budget updates had been forwarded to the Commission. The Director produced a safety cone topped with a polling site sign and explained its use. At the previous Commission meeting, this item’s cost and use had been questioned. Director Arntz thanked David Pilpel for his valuable feedback in helping to make the budget more understandable for the public.
• Update on the Independent Testing Authority’s (ITA) certification process. ITA testing was completed on January 30, 2006. ITA issued a letter to the Secretary of State’s Office (SoS) recommending that the Sequoia System be certified for use in California. This completes the ITA process.
• Update on Secretary of State testing of Sequoia’s Voting System for certification. Functional testing, also known as stress testing, was completed today. The Director said he was not made aware of any issues that may have been discovered during the testing. The next step is for SoS staff to make a written report of the testing. On March 1, 2006, there will be a public hearing on the Sequoia system. Seven days after the hearing, the SoS can choose to certify its use in California. In Sacramento, on Friday, February 17, 2006, the SoS is providing a demonstration of all the systems being tested. Elections officials are invited. The Director advised that he could invite two Commissioners to join him and asked those interested in doing so to let him know.
• Update on voting equipment contract. The Director reported that the contract has been negotiated and currently the language is being finalized.
Commissioner Gleason asked the Director whether the Department expects to sign a contract before the RCV certification is completed. Director Arntz said that the contract will be signed before the RCV certification is completed. He said that within two weeks of the execution of the contract, he will meet with Sequoia representatives to finalize any RCV elements that were not completed for the pilot program. The system will then go for ITA testing and the expectation is that this will happen before the June Primary. Director Arntz advised the Commission that payment to the vendor will not be made until certification is completed. Commissioner Gleason asked if the SoS is aware of this situation and the Director answered affirmatively.
Commissioner Chung asked when the certification of the RCV portion of the contract would occur. Director Arntz replied that it would be in May and that this would provide the SoS with sufficient time to review the RCV system; Sequoia has a platform built for RCV and he has no concerns regarding it being ready for the November Election
Commissioner Gleason asked about the memorandum the Director sent to Supervisor Mirkarimi dated February 10, 2005, and if the vote-by-mail option as an alternate plan had been presented to the Commission before. The Director explained that the all-mail-ballot idea had been discussed in the past, however, before it can be used, there would need to be a 2/3 majority of the legislature to pass this bill. Such a plan is unlikely to be approved in time for the June Primary. Commissioner Gleason asked about ES&S's Automark system and whether ES&S has submitted an application for certification of its use with the Eagle system. Director Arntz said that he met with ES&S last Friday and was told that ES&S has a letter from ITA on file with the SoS that apparently supports the idea that Automark can be certified with the current system, but that it was his understanding that no process has been initiated nor has an actual application for certification not submitted to the SoS.
President Matthews asked Director Arntz if there was an update on the Controller’s Report. The Director said that it is expected to be completed by the end of February.
6. Commissioner Repots. President Matthews reported that he had spoken to various interested parties regarding certification and that Supervisor Mirkarimi’s office has requested that he testify at tomorrow’s Rules Committee about the issue of certification for this year’s elections.
7. Discussion and Possible Action to assign oversight roles to Elections Commissioners for the June 6, 2006 Primary Election.
President Matthews thanked the Director for the summary he provided of potential places that Commissioners could be helpful to the Department on Election Day. He then asked the Commissioners to report their decisions regarding what oversight roles they plan to fill. Commissioner Gleason – will be an inspector at the same precinct he worked during the November 2005 election. Commissioner Safire – will be working with Director Arntz on a plan for oversight in which they will be working together. Commissioner Chung – will be an inspector or a FED. Commissioner Meek – will be a FED or an inspector, depending upon which one Commissioner Chung chooses. Commissioner Mendelson – will finish the video, possibly an animation, he has been working on with people from Los Angeles of voter responses regarding how to make the voting experience more friendly. Commissioner Matthews – will probably be an inspector or participate in a day-long observation of many venues.
Commissioner Gleason said that he’s been advocating, since coming on the
Commission, that Commissioners become more involved in the election day process.
He said that he was surprised to learn that of the original Commission members, only one Commissioner had had any precinct level election day involvement. That had been Commissioner Thomas Schulz who had served as a precinct inspector. Commissioner Gleason said that working on Election Day is an important function of an Elections Commissioner. He said, however, despite his previously advocating for more Commission members to serve as polling place workers, it is actually not a good idea for all Commissioners to serve in that function. When someone works as a FED, Inspector or Poll Worker, that person, even a Commissioner, serves under the direction of the Director and Department of Elections and that is the proper situation. However, it is also important that Commissioners perform the important duty of oversight of the Department of Elections, and in order to do that, some number of the Commissioners should not directly be involved in functions that would put them under the direction of the Director or Department of Elections on Election Day. These separate but important functions may include independently visiting numerous precincts or being available at City Hall to respond to public inquiry.
Commissioner Gleason also suggested that the Elections Commission members who are not in positions under the direction of the Department of Elections on Election Day be issued unescorted and reasonably unrestricted access identification badges for that day.
8. Discussion and possible action concerning what the Commission can do to ensure that the Department’s budget is adequate. President Matthews asked the Director if, in addition to the approval of the Supplemental and Annual Budgets later on this agenda, there is anything the Commission can do to assist the Department. The Director asked the members to review the budget and contact him if there are questions. Also, he would like the Commission members to make themselves available for the budget presentation to the Board of Supervisors.
9. New Business
(a) Discussion and possible action to approve the minutes for the Commission meeting of January 18, 2006. Commissioner Chung MOVED and Commissioner Safire SECONDED approval of the minutes. The roll call vote was UNANIMOUS to approve the January 18, 2006 minutes.
(b) The Commission will hear from the Budget and Policy Committee regarding its unanimous recommendation to approve the Supplemental Budget request for Fiscal Year 2005-2006.
Discussion and possible action to accept the Budget and Policy Committee recommendation regarding approval of the Department of Elections’ Supplemental Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2005-2006.
Commissioner Gleason reported that the Budget and Policy Committee met on Tuesday, February 7, 2006, and received a well prepared and presented supplemental budget request. After review and discussion, the Committee voted that the Department needs the $1,454,912 of supplemental funds and recommended approval to the full Commission. Commissioner Chung MOVED and Commissioner Safire SECONDED approval of this item. The roll call vote was UNANIMOUS to approve the Supplemental Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2005-2006.
(c) The Commission will hear from the Budget and Policy Committee regarding its unanimous recommendation to approve the Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2006-2007. Discussion and possible action to accept the Budget and Policy Committee recommendation regarding approval of the Department of Elections’ Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2006-2007. Commissioner Gleason reported that the Budget and Policy Committee met on Tuesday, February 7, 2006, and received a well prepared and presented budget request. After review and discussion, the Committee voted that the Department needs the $9,521,999 for Fiscal Year 2006-2007, and recommended approval of the budget to the full Commission. Commissioner Safire MOVED and Commissioner Meek SECONDED approval of this item. The roll call vote was UNANIMOUS to approve the Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2006-2007.
(d) Discussion and possible action to make a presentation to the Mayor’s Office and the Board of Supervisors to explain what happens in the Department and how voters are affected/inconvenienced by budget cutbacks. This item was continued until Commissioner Arnold Townsend could be present.
10. Old Business
• Update and possible action on the proposed Voting Systems Forum for March 29, 2006. Commissioner Gleason reminded members and the audience that the Forum will be held at the Main Library. Commissioner Gleason asked if the Commission agreed with his proposal to have a panel of four or more knowledgeable persons. He presented a list of possible panel members and said that a letter to the prospective panel members would be mailed out early next week. Commissioner Gleason announced that if Commissioners have any further names to suggest, to contact him. There will be press announcements about the forum that will be sent to the Board of Supervisors, the Mayor’s Office, other government agencies and the media.
11. Public comment on any issue within the Elections Commission’s general jurisdiction. Jim Soper said that the Automark was certified, by itself, by the Secretary of State’s Office. Chris Jerdonek said no one has observed the Sequoia System handling RCV ballots and that he is concerned that there may not be enough time to fix problems. Jeannette Hammond said that she is concerned that the Department is rushing forward with Sequoia without looking at less expensive alternatives. Steven Hill said that he thinks the Department should continue to use ES&S's equipment because it is known to work rather than trust the Sequoia system which has not been certified for RCV. Carol Bella said that whole country is in chaos because of the HAVA deadlines and that votes are too important to risk.
12. ADJOURNMENT @ 7:55 pm.