Elections Commission
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 City and County of San Francisco
Elections Commission
Approved: January 17, 2007
Minutes of the Meeting at City Hall Room 421
January 3, 2007
1. CALL TO ORDER. President Matthews called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm.
2. ROLL CALL. PRESENT: Commissioners Gerard Gleason, Richard P. Matthews, Arnold Townsend, Victor Hwang, Michael Mendelson, Jennifer Meek, Tajel Shah and Deputy City Attorney Ann O’Leary, and Deputy Director of Elections Linda Tulett.
3. Director’s Report.
Deputy Director Linda Tulett reported that meetings with the Budget Analyst to determine the final amount of the DoE’s Supplemental Budget Request continue. Final bills from vendors, reimbursements from the school measure and others are still being gathered. The final Supplemental amount should be reached within the next two weeks.
The Deputy Director said that Budget for Fiscal Year 2007 – 2008 was being formulated as Division Managers are putting together their plans for the year. The Mayor’s Budget Office has indicated that they want all departments to cut their budget by 3 percent based on their budgets for the previous fiscal year. However, the DoE has additional constraints when compared to last year, for example the new voting equipment it will be implementing this year. She reminded the Commission that in elections, predicting costs like printing ballots for each election year cannot be done at budget submission in February because the size of the ballot is not known until eighty-eight days before an election.
Deputy Director Tulett explained that the contract for the new voting system has not been sent to the Board of Supervisors, and the Director will return at the end of this week to prepare the information. The state has not yet received spending authority from the Department of Finance to finalize the DoE’s HAVA (Help America Vote Act) funding. The incoming Secretary of State’s office knows that this is a priority. The Board and the Controller’s Office may not approve a resolution until the funding (HAVA) is available.
The Deputy Director reported that RCV (Ranked Choice Voting) remains in development and testing. A senior project manager has been assigned to oversee this. The vendor has not provided any deadlines, and probably will not do so until the contract is signed. However, the contract does contain deadlines which the vendor must acquire both federal and state certification with liquidated damages should these deadlines not be met.
The Elections Code Amendments which were before the Board of Supervisors have been fully adopted.
The responses to emails from the public regarding election day activities, the Provisional Ballot Status Report, the Department’s response to complaints filed in the Complaint Log, and the Standard for Determining Overvotes in the 1% Manual tally have been provided to the Commission. Note: A copy of these reports is available in the Commission’s Public File.
Commissioner Gleason clarified the question regarding the 1% manual tally. He gave an example of a ballot on which a voter has changed, that is crossed out, a vote and entered a different one. Therefore, what is the voter’s intent. Does the department correct that voter intent as a “remake”?
Deputy Director Tulett answered “no”. She said the one percent manual tally, which used to be contained in the recount section of state law, is now in the semi-official section of the law, and the intent is NOT to remake and recount ballots. The intent is to verify that the voting machine is performing in the manner in which it was programmed. Ballots are not remade and recounted at that time. The one percent tally is the very last step in the certification process.
President Matthews said that there is a new law that came into being on the first of January that will change the 1 % tally. Deputy Director Tulett said that she was unaware of such a law, but that there is a new statute about 1 % that will include absentee ballots, but that it does not change the definition of the 1 percent tally.
Public Comment. Brent Turner said that “Liquidated Damages”, as mentioned in the Director’s Report regarding the contract with Sequoia Voting Systems, may be all right in a real estate contract, but in the voting systems contract does not provide him with “the comfort level that we seem to seek when getting a proper vote count.” Steven Hill asked if Sequoia had announced when their equipment would be sent for testing. Deputy Director Tulett responded that she had no information from the vendor on that topic. Bob Friese presented information he said he collected from “an entire media search” on the internet regarding positive and negative information regarding Sequoia. Lee Munson said he was a Library Commissioner and former Civil Service Commissioner. He asked if Sequoia had finished “coding a test version of their RCV equipment”. Deputy Director Tulett replied that in 2005 when the RFP was issued, Sequoia demonstrated that their system could handle RCV. Mr. Munson said that the new congress has, as one of its priorities, “the cleaning up of the problem of elections.” He said that the City should try to re-certify the ES&S machines because they meet all the requirements, and that the system is already paid for. Chris Jerdonek said that he observed the one percent tally, and that the Department should have the vendor program the machine to flag and set aside all over-voted ballots, or the Department could do that manually, and check all precincts, not just in one per cent of all the precincts.
4. OLD BUSINESS
(a) Discussion and possible action to approve the Elections Commission minutes for the meeting of October 4, 1006. Commissioner Mendelson MOVED and Commissioner Meek SECONDED. Commissioner Hwang offered a correction of a typo in the minutes. MOTION: Approve the minutes with the correction. A Roll Call Vote was UNANIMOUS.
5. NEW BUSINESS
(a) Discussion and possible action to approve the Elections Commission minutes for the meeting of December 6, 2006. Commissioner Mendelson MOVED and Commissioner Meek SECONDED.
Public Comment. Sacha Ielmorini, said that a portion of her public comments had been left out the minutes. She said that she would like added to her statement, her comments regarding the Democrats taking over on the federal level and the new California Secretary of State and “that there will be a lot of new legislation in terms of voting machines and that the City should wait.” She also asked that the comment that Commission Townsend made at that meeting regarding his not being concerned about voters at Starbucks polling places speaking to one another be included. Robert Friese said that the minutes reflecting his statement did not convey his key point, which was that the Alameda contract with Sequoia did not contain the ability for the county to test the “hackability” of the equipment.
President Matthews said that the obligation of the minutes is to capture what the Commission does and the actions of the Commission. He asked the Deputy City Attorney about the obligations of the Commission Secretary regarding summarizing what members of the public say at meetings.
Deputy City Attorney O’Leary said there were two concerns. One was what members of the public have the opportunity to have their statements included in the minutes. There are two options: the minutes can be revised using the recorded minutes, or members of the public can provide written information to supplement what is written in the minutes. Secondly, she advised that the discussion between commissioners regarding voting in public places be included after the Secretary listens, again, to the tape of the meeting.
Commissioner Townsend said that he wanted it on the record that he thinks it is important and worth the time to include public comments. He said that citizens take time to come to meetings and deserve to have the gist of their comments included in the minutes, understanding that the minutes are not a verbatim quote.
Action on this item is POSTPONED to the next meeting.
(b) Discussion regarding possible amendments to the Elections Commission Bylaws:
(i) to include a set date for presentation of the Annual Report to the
Commission.
(ii) include the Commission’s Attendance Policy as part of the Bylaws.
(iii) include a polity requiring Commissioners to forward correspondence addressed to a majority of the Commission to the Commission Secretary for inclusion in the public review file.
Public Comment. Steven Hill commented on (iii). He said that the reason for this being on the agenda was that he sent an email to a Commissioner, who then forwarded his email to a majority of the other Commissioners. He said that citizens should have the right of private correspondence with appointed and elected officials. As the initiator of the correspondence, he did not intend for the email to be part of the public record. Mr. Hill said that the principle could be taken too far in the wrong direction and undermine the ability of citizens to have private correspondence with officials, unless that person wants it to be so entered in the public viewing file.
Commissioner Meek reminded Mr. Hill that he did, indeed, send his email to a majority of the Commissioners (four) initially.
Commissioner Townsend said that whether correspondence is sent to one or four members, a member of the public can have private discussion with any Commissioner and that this is the public’s right. The member of the public can ask the Commissioner to keep the correspondence private. However, when the Commissioner decides, “for whatever reason, to send it on to a majority, what could happen, and I’m not suggesting that’s what happened in this situation, is you could have four Commissioners and a member of the public legislating without the public or the rest of the Commissioners being aware.”
Deputy City Attorney O’Leary clarified the Brown Act. She stated that the Brown Act states that if any correspondence is sent to a majority of the Commission, it is a public record. If an individual of the public sends information to less than a majority of the Commission, it is not a public record. She then explained that if a member of the Commission decides to forward a private correspondence to a majority of the Commission, it is the prerogative of that Commissioner and it then becomes a public record. The protection that the Brown Act is trying to ensure is that information considered by a majority of the Commission is public and that a majority of the Commission is not having a public meeting via email.
(b) Discussion and possible action to elect Officers of the San Francisco Elections Commission.
For the office of President, Commissioner Townsend nominated Commissioner Meek. There were no further nominations.
Public Comment. Steven Hill said that he appreciated the Commission’s past policy of allowing public comment on all items before the Commission, not just those that required action, and that he hoped this would continue in the future under the new president. Brent Turner agreed with the previous comment and added that he hoped the president keeps an open mind regarding open source code, and continues to respond the citizens who come to these meetings.
The Roll Call Vote was UNANIMOUS.
For the office of Vice President, Commissioner Hwang nominated Commissioner Townsend. There were no further nominations.
The Roll Call Vote was UNANIMOUS.
President Matthews reminded the Commission that these offices take effect immediately upon the conclusion of this meeting, and thanked the Commission for the opportunity given him to serve as President for the past year and a half.
6. Discussion regarding items for future agendas.
Commissioner Mendelson suggested that the Deputy City Attorney consider an in-house retreat, perhaps in April, devoted to the duties and obligations of Commissioners. He said that this would help the public understand the Commission’s functions.
Commissioner Shah asked for more information about the supplemental budget request. She said that the DoE’s budget was actually cut last year and she wanted to know if other departments had similar cuts. She said she wanted to know which departments were getting increases in their budgets. This information might assist the Department in its budget strategy. Deputy Director Tulett answered in the affirmative to Commissioner Shah’s idea.
Commissioner Townsend said that he was displeased with the size and accommodations of the meeting room (City Hall 421) for this meeting and asked the Commission Secretary to look into getting a location that could comfortably accommodate the seven member Commission and an audience the size of tonight’s (approximately 20 members of the public).
Public Comment. Chris Jerdonek asked that the Commission look into counting ballots with voter intent in mind, particularly when the voter changes a vote by marking out a vote. President Matthews asked Mr. Jerdonek if he meant the discussion should cover ALL ballots with changes. Mr. Jerdonek answered in the affirmative. Brent Turner wanted to know if “experts” available to him could be invited to present information at an upcoming meeting. Bob Friese asked for the opportunity to see the Sequoia Contract before it is signed. Alexander Munson said that he agreed with Mr. Friese’s request. Deputy City Attorney O’Leary reminded everyone that the contract, because it is for over $10M has to go before the Board of Supervisors, and at that time a resolution is put forward at the contract’s introduction. Then the Board takes thirty or more days to consider the contract. At the time the resolution is put forward and introduced, it is a public document. Deputy City Attorney O’Leary advised the Commission to make that contract available at its first meeting after introduction at the Board of Supervisors. She reminded everyone that there will be public comment at the Board of Supervisors when they consider the contract.
7. Public Comment. Sacha Ielmorini requested that the City move forward with the re-certification of the current voting system for the next election because, she said, “there is a large possibly that we may need to use it… because there is a new Secretary of State coming in and we should see what her standards are going to be.” Brent Turner said that the Commission should define its role because he thinks there is confusion regarding the authority and role of the Commission in advising the Board of Supervisors. An unidentified speaker said that the “EAC adopted a new voting system testing and certification program.” Steven Hill said that it wouldn’t affect the Sequoia contract for the Commission or the Director to ask ES&S to go ahead, just in case, Sequoia is not ready, and get permission from the Secretary of State to use their equipment for one more year.
Commission Secretary Shirley Rodriques asked the audience to give her any further information regarding their public comments in the December 6, 2006 minutes.
ADJOURNMENT at 8:05 pm.