San Francisco Elections Commission

COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT
January 24, 2002 - March 19, 2003

Pursuant to the Bylaws of the San Francisco Elections Commission, Article XI, I herewith submit the Commission's Annual Report for the Commission's first year, 2002.

Michael Mendelson
President

San Francisco Elections Commission
#1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 48
San Francisco, CA 94102
web site: www.sfgov.org/elections
Commission email at: elections.commission@sfgov.org
phone: (415) 554-4305
fax: (415) 554-7457

COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT
January 24, 2002 - March 19, 2003

Table of Contents:

Introduction

Significant Commission Events

Creating An Independent Elections Department

General Policy Concerns And Strategic Planning

Budget

A Comparative Overview Of Selected Expenditures
Fy 2001 - 2002 And Fy 2002 - 2003.

Conclusion

Addendum
Secretary's Report

Introduction

On 5 November 2002, the San Francisco voters passed Proposition E, a Charter

Amendment. The Amendment altered the method of selecting the Director of Elections. Charter §13.104.5 previously provided that the City Administrator, a mayor appointed City official, appointed the Director of Elections. The City Administrator selected the Director according to Civil Service Rules. The Director, having successfully completed the required probationary period, was removable only for "cause."

The new commission consisted of seven individuals, each appointed by a separate elected official or entity. The Amendment provided for staggered terms. The various appointees by the various appointing authorities were:

Upon completion of the initial term of office, succeeding commissioners shall serve for a term of five years. The amended Charter provision also provided the Commission "...shall appoint the Director of Elections pursuant to civil service rules..."; further, that the Commission shall set the "general policies for the Election Department as well as other general supervisory duties." The amended Charter provision provided the Director of Elections shall be responsible for the "day to day operations" of the Election Department and that the Director could only be removed for cause.

The voters had, by Charter amendment, moved the Department of Elections from a mayoralty appointment to one whereby an autonomous Elections Commission selected the Department Director and set the Department's general policies. Notably, the amended Charter provision also required a commissioner have no employment with the City, State, or federal government; further, Commissioner qualifications included no lobbying or direct involvement in political campaigns. Essentially, the Charter amendment created an Elections Department separate and apart from politics.

On 22 January 2002, Dennis Herrera, the City Attorney, swore in the seven new commissioners. Present at the swearing in ceremony was Tammy Haygood, the incumbent Director of Elections whose dismissal by the newly sworn in Commission some three months later created a political firestorm that, for some ten months, swirled around the Elections Commission. A California Court of Appeal extinguished that firestorm when it ruled the Elections Commission had the right to fire the incumbent Director without a hearing because, as a probationary employee, she had no entitlement to a hearing on her discharge.

Significant Commission Events

In the 6 November 2001 election, a proposition passed which addressed the creation of a Task Force to redraw the boundaries of the 11 Supervisor districts using new census data. Of the 9 members, three were to be appointed by the Mayor, three by the Board of Supervisors, and three by the Director of Elections or by the Elections Commission if the Charter amendment creating it passed. By early January a majority of Elections Commissioners had been appointed but its first meeting and swearing in ceremony had not been set. On 11 January 2002 Director Haygood, announced she had made the three appointments to the Elections Task Force.

The Commission, shortly after being sworn in and before the Task Force began its redistricting agenda, terminated the appointments made by Director Haygood. Within one week the Commission reviewed applications for Task Force membership (including those who applied to the Director of Elections), and on 4 February 2002, appointed three members of the Elections Task Force. All three assumed leadership positions on the redistricting effort.

On 22 April 2002, the Elections Commission terminated its incumbent director, Tammy Haygood. At the same meeting, Thomas Schulz resigned as president after three months citing time commitments. The Commission voted Michael Mendelson its new president.

The Commission immediately faced two related and complex problems, both unprecedented. The first problem, the firing of the Director and its potential for contentious litigation, would require immediate attention to protect the Commission's authority to appoint its own Director. The second problem was the creation of an independent Elections Department, a department standing apart from city government control.
Before Haygood's termination, the City Attorney advised the Commission that the Charter authorized it to appoint the Director of Elections.

Firing the Director of Elections

Prior to its amendment, Charter §13.104 authorized the City Administrator to appoint the Director of Elections "from a list of qualified applicants provided under the civil service provisions of the Charter." It provided "[T]he Director may be removed by the City Administrator for cause, subject to appeal of the Civil Service Commission."

On 9 July 2001, Haygood began work in the Elections Department. On 6 August 01, the City Administrator appointed Haygood Director of Elections (Civil Service Class Number 1128). On 15 August 02, Haygood signed an "Acknowledgement of Probation" agreeing that her probation would terminate on 15 August 03.

Although the position, Director of Elections, had a salary range of $93,522 to $113,672, on 7 November, Haygood was classified as a "Manager X" qualifying her for a salary of $121,472. No explanation was given to the Commission why Haygood was immediately placed in the "Manager X" category.

In November 2001, the voters amended Charter § 13.104 some four months after Haygood's appointment to authorized the charter-created Elections Commission to appoint and oversee the Director of Elections. It also required the Director of Elections be appointed "from a list of qualified applicants provided under the Civil Service provisions of the Charter." The amendment provided the Director serve a five-year term; and that the Director was only removable "for cause" after a hearing with an appeal to the Civil Service Commission.

On 21 February 02, the City Attorney informed the Elections Commission that (1) the incumbent Director of Elections had no vested right to the position as a result of the Charter Amendment; (2) the Amendment did not change Haygood's status as a probationary employee, (3) as a probationary employee, Haygood could be terminated at will. Later, the City Attorney informed the Commission that even though the Commission relied on his opinion to fire Haygood, his office would not represent the Elections Commission if litigation ensued.

On 22 April 02, the incumbent Director stated publicly that the Commission's review of her job status and the right of the Commission to remove her was political, stating "if they don't want me there because they don't think I'm the kind of person they want, they ought to have the balls to say that." Standing firmly on the City Attorney's opinion that concluded the incumbent Director was a probationary employee, the Commission fired the incumbent Director at the 22 April 02 meeting for reasons the Commission is prohibited from disclosing.

On 2 May 02, Haygood's lawyer wrote the Elections Commission demanding his client's immediate reinstatement. The Elections Commission did not acquiesce to her lawyer's demand.

On 18 June 02, the San Francisco Civil Service Commission ruled unanimously that, notwithstanding the City Attorney's opinion that Haygood was a probationary employee, it had jurisdiction to hear Haygood's termination appeal.

On 19 June 02, the City Attorney, Dennis Herrera said that his office would not represent the Elections Commission. Herrera stated that the City Attorney's withdrawal would permit the legal issues to move more quickly than if his office involved itself.

On 30 June 02, the Elections Commission retained the Law Firm of Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady, Falk and Rabkin to represent it.

On 2 July 2002, the Civil Service Commission assumed jurisdiction over the Haygood firing and ordered Haygood's reinstatement with back pay and all benefits.

On 15 July 02, the Civil Service Commission ordered the Elections Commission to return Haygood to her duties as Elections Director. The Commission's attorneys, Steven Mayer and Joseph Quinn, immediately sought a temporary restraining order to prevent Haygood's return.

Less than three hours after the Civil Service Commission reinstated the former elections chief, a Superior Court Judge issued a temporary restraining order barring Haygood's return to the Elections Department. Haygood thereafter attempted to remove the case from state court on to federal court.

On 22 July 02, Federal Judge William Alsup extended the restraining order. The Federal Judge characterized Haygood's lawsuit in his court as "transparent," "gamesmanship," and "unfair." The courts eventually stayed Haygood's return to the Elections Department until Friday 26 July 02, pending the outcome of litigation.

The Elections Department sought a writ of mandate to declare the Civil Service Commission's ruling returning Haygood to the Director's position violative of the San Francisco Civil Service rules. Superior Court Judge James McBride set the hearing date for 30 August 02; further, he ordered Haygood receive back pay and benefits from 22 April until resolution.

On 4 September, Judge McBride ordered Haygood's reinstatement. Four days later, the state court of appeals blocked Haygood from returning to her position as Director. The Court set 11 December 02 as the date for oral argument in the case.

On 17 January 03, a unanimous court of appeals sided with the Commission and ruled that Haygood, as a probationary employee, had no right to get her job back. The Court concluded that the Commission had properly exercised its authority to dismiss Haygood.

Creating an Independent Elections Department

On 24 April 2002, the Commission hired Shirley Rodriques as its Commission Secretary. Ms. Rodriques' hiring resulted from an active recruitment campaign that served as the prototype from the subsequent program to recruit a new Elections Department Director. The recruitment conformed to the Department of Human Resources requirements including but not limited to creation of job specifications, advertising of the position, creation of a committee to interview prospective secretary applicants, and a written test.

On 5 June 2002, the Commission passed its by laws, presently in effect, which control the Commission's operation, and are accessible at the San Francisco Government website (www.sfgov.org).

In September 2002, Provisional Director Arntz compiled the Department's operations manual. He presented the manual to the Commission on September 18, 2002. The manual specifically documents the various departmental operations required to support an election. The manual's existence provides the first compendium of Elections Department activities so that these activities are readily accessible and understandable.

In November 2002 and December 2002, the Election Department ran a general election and a run off election. The Secretary of State's Office had observers on sight and later lauded the Department's election management. Some 200,000 voters participated in the November election, which required a four-card ballot (800,000 ballots total). The election included more than sixty issues including candidates for statewide, local, judiciary, and executive offices as well as statewide and local initiatives. The November results were completed by 10:30 p.m. that evening. The December 2002 runoff involved 127 precincts out of a total of 630 precincts citywide, with more than 100,000 voters participating. New departmental efficiencies made the election results available 45 minutes after the polls closed.

Since his appointment, Mr. Arntz has developed a plan to implement ranked choice voting, passed as Proposition A in the March 2002 election. This plan requires insuring the election equipment vendor provides a system meeting rigorous state standards: that a backup exists in case the primary system fails; and that voters will be educated in the Instant Run Off Voting process. Mr. Arntz has established a 30 June 2003 deadline for the placement of the necessary equipment and software. Ranked choice voting (RCV) has required the dedication of a significant amount of time and resources of the Department over the last eight months.

General Policy Concerns and Strategic Planning

While the Haygood litigation situation required urgent attention, the Commission also needed to begin long term strategic planning to create and implement a "stand alone," independent Elections Department free from political interference. Such planning required the Commission to oversee the Elections Department's orderly transition from a government agency to an autonomous commission-supervised entity; further, the Commission had to plan and implement such transition during a time of intense media scrutiny resulting from the Haygood firing and pressure from political forces.

On 29 April 2002, the Commission appointed John Arntz, the Acting Director. Mr. Arntz had almost three years experience in the Department and importantly, the respect of key Department employees. Mr. Arntz took over approximately six months before a general election and a possible run off election.

The Commission faced an additional operational problem; it required someone exercise all of the Director's powers, a "provisional director", while the search for a permanent Director went ahead. This appointment process required Department of Human Resources participation. Pursuant to Civil Service rules, Commissioners Rosenthal, Stowers, and Mendelson formed a committee that advertised the position, interviewed four candidates, and ultimately recommended that Acting Director Arntz become Provisional Director. Subsequently, the full Commission ratified the Committee recommendation. Additionally, the Haygood termination required the Commission step up its nationwide recruitment for a Director of Elections of the Commission's choosing. The Commission's Personnel Committee had, previous to Haygood's termination, begun meeting with the Department of Human Resources to implement its obligation under the Charter amendment to appoint a new Director of Elections. While the Haygood litigation moved forward, the Commission suspended recruitment. That process has now restarted with no detriment to the Elections Department's efficiency.

In the past year, the Elections Commission shaped its strategic course for the Elections Department's future. The Elections Department ensures the electoral process operates in a fair, efficient, and effective manner. The infrastructure requires three fundamental elements: space, structure, and staff.

First, the Elections Department must operate in one central location with the space necessary to perform the legally required activities to support its mandate.

Second, the Elections Department must have an organizational framework that supports and carries out the legally mandated Department duties.

Third, the Elections Department must have the requisite full time, civil service personnel to support the structure that carries out the Department's legally mandated duties.

Provisional Director Arntz , David Howe, consultant in the elections field and John Mott-Smith, Chief of Elections of the California Secretary of State's office met to discuss the necessary steps required to create an independent Elections Department. The Commission President met with Provisional Director Arntz and Mr. Howe on numerous occasions to discuss and create the Commission action necessary to make these strategic means general Commission policy. The Commission passed the necessary motions to make these three strategic goals Commission policy.

On 6 March 02, the Commission approved the search for a single location for the Department, replacing a multitude of disconnected rented space. On 2 October 02, it approved a personnel policy requiring year round employees to end the Department's reliance on temporary staff. On 23 October 02, the Commission approved a Department organizational chart.

With the Commission passage of appropriate resolutions, it has ensured that, in the Commission's second year, general policies will foster the goal of an autonomous agency capable of running elections in a fair, efficient, and effective manner.

Budget

The Elections Commission was introduced to the departmental budget two weeks after being sworn in, when they received documentation from the budget analyst indicating the Department was requesting a $5.6 million supplemental appropriation to cover operations through the March 5, 2002 Open Primary Election.

Six months into the fiscal year this budget shortfall created an awareness of the chronic underfunding of the Department and a focus on current departmental spending. Comments in the March 20, 2002 Budget Analyst's Report and from the Financial Rules Committee, along with a departmental freeze on spending issued by the Controller, resulted in the Commission's close scrutiny of the FY '01-'02 budget. Audits on ballot purchase, vehicle rentals and cell phone expenditures were then requested. Currently, the ballot audit has been completed, the cell phone audit is underway and a vehicle audit is pending.

The Controller's audit of the March 5, 2002 ballot order and the resultant report clearly indicates that the former Director of Elections imprudently ordered more ballots than were necessary. The Controller's Office issued an official report stating $900,000 of the Department's budget was used to pay for this excess.

It also became apparent that vehicle rentals for election use were mismanaged. In all, 185 vehicles were rented for the March 5, 2002 election. The billing for these rentals topped $210,000, because they were rented an entire month prior to the election and because they were not returned to the rental agency in a timely manner.

The Department's operations were affected by these problems when the budget shortfall necessitated the wholesale reduction of staff following the March 2002 election. By the end of the fiscal year the Department was reduced to eight staff members to prepare for a November Election only four months away.

As the current fiscal year got underway, the Commission felt confident that the Acting Director, John Arntz, had an excellent grasp of budget management and election operations. His history with the Department and his awareness of the Department's true spending needs brought stability and accuracy to expenditures.

For the first time since 1998, the Department of Elections has not requested supplemental appropriation following a runoff election. For the first time in recent memory, the Department is planning for the next fiscal year's elections before the fiscal year begins.

An Overview of Elections Budgets 1999 - 2003

*Votomatic punch card system replaced by Optech Eagles

This year the Acting Director established a departmental budget division, including departmental payroll and procurement personnel. This has resulted in improved budget management and fiscal control. The budget division has worked closely with the Controller's Office to follow current year spending and is on track to close out the fiscal year within the $ 8,975,979 budget submitted in late June 2002.

The budget team is currently working with the Mayor's Budget Office on budget preparation for FY '03-'04 using the baselines set this year as a guideline. The initial FY '03 budget preparation was submitted to the Controller and the Mayor's Budget Office on March 21, 2003.

Notwithstanding a year of unexpected expenditures such as an unprecedented four-card ballot, a 272-page Voter Information Pamphlet, continuation of salary payments to the Former Director, six months of compensation time payments to the former Deputy Director, and a $50,000 retainer fee for the Commission's legal counsel, the Department has managed to stay within budget. This is the direct result of fiscal controls implemented by now Provisional Director John Arntz.

The following chart illustrates the impact of departmental budget controls implemented this fiscal year.

A Comparative Overview of Selected Expenditures FY '01-'02 and FY '02-`03

The Department looks forward to the continued maintenance of budget controls so as to demonstrate its efficiency in fiscal management. The maintenance of these fiscal controls is especially important in light of the Department's history of chronic underfunding.

Conclusion

The Commission's first year has been monumental. The Commission created its `persona" and bylaws; it successfully managed the difficult transition from governmental agency to an independent department; it is completing its search for its first permanent director to manage an independent department. With the Provisional Director Arntz's guidance, the Commission exercised significant budget control; it has created a body of Department policies; it has authorized the emplacement of a departmental personnel structure to ensure institutional longevity and memory.

Notwithstanding its chronic lack of funding, the Department has grown and prospered under John Arntz. In spite of much adversity, Mr. Arntz and his dedicated staff have acted professionally, exemplifying industry and creativity. May the Department in years succeeding maintain the high level of achievement that the Department has now achieved.

ADDENDUM

2002 Report by the Commission Secretary

Previous to the hiring of Shirley Rodriques, the duties of Commission Secretary were performed by various members of the City of San Francisco and Department of Elections.

Immediately upon being hired on April 24, 2002, Shirley Rodriques organized the new Elections Commission Office, which is located within the Department of Elections on the ground floor of City Hall in Room 48, and the Commission's files. She put in place the various office procedures necessary to assist the Commission in its functions. Ms. Rodriques established document and reporting formats, as well as repositories for information required to be generated by the Elections Commission. All correspondence to and from the Commission is available for public viewing at the lobby area of the Department and in the office of the Elections Commission. Agendas for meetings are posted on the bulletin board at the main entrance to the Department of Elections, at the Main Public Library, at City Hall Room 400 or at the site of Special Meetings, and at the Election Commission website.

The public can reach the Elections Commission by email at: elections.commission@sfgov.org.

The Elections Commission's regular meetings are scheduled on the first and third Wednesday of each month and are held in City Hall room 400 at 7:00 pm, and are conducted following Robert's Rules or Order. Drafts of meeting minutes are posted to the Commission's website within ten days of the meeting. Finalized meeting minutes are posted to the internet after approval by the Commission at its next regular meeting. Audio tapes of all meetings are maintained at the Commission office.

All motions approved by the Elections Commission can be located on the Commission's website under "motions". These motions are numbered in sequence in the following manner: the meeting month, day, and year, followed by a number that reflects in what order the motion was taken at that meeting. The public can make an inquiry of subjects by typing in a key word and instituting a search for that topic.