Elections Commission
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002
City and County of San Francisco
Elections Commission
Approved July 20, 2005
Minutes of the Meeting held
June 20, 2005
1. CALL TO ORDER. President Matthews called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm.
2. ROLL CALL. PRESENT: Commissioners, Gerard Gleason, Eric Safire, Arnold Townsend, Richard Matthews, Sheila Chung, and Michael Mendelson
3. DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Voter Services Division – The division is reviewing petitions for the Statewide Special Election that will take place on November 8, 2005. Currently there are six state measures qualified for the ballot. Staff is doing data base maintenance, and processing alternate residency cards (6,000 turned in out of 42,000 sent).
Campaign Services – The division is providing signatures in lieu petitions and answering questions from walk ins and phone calls regarding the upcoming election.
Poll Locating/ADA – This division’s staff is using mapping software to identify polling places in need of bi-lingual poll workers and where locations are inaccessible.
Budget / Personnel – The division is currently making final purchases from the current budget in preparation for the July 1, 2005, budget going in effect. The DoE goes before the Budget Committee next Thursday (June 23, 2005) and again on June 30.
Poll Worker Division - The division has set up a website with information for poll workers and has sent out its first newsletter to make them aware of upcoming issues for the November election. There are plans to provide voters a “voter feedback” form.
Outreach – The division is continuing to prepare content for materials for voters.
Request for Proposals (RFPs) – Two bids have been received. They are from ES&S and Sequoia. The selection panel is reviewing these bids and will complete its initial evaluation next week.
4. PRESIDENT’S REPORT
President Matthews stated that he had a brief discussion with the Mayor and his Chief of Staff on May 18 regarding the Department’s budget needs for the upcoming fiscal year. The President said that the Mayor is aware of the Department’s concerns and is interested in having the DoE funded as fully as possible. One example was the need for an accounting position. The Mayor agreed that this was a necessary request.
President Matthews reported that he attended a meeting a few weeks ago with DoE staff and former community outreach programs grantees which included the Senior Action Network and Lighthouse for the Blind. He said the meeting was very informative. He encouraged other members of the Commission to attend the next such meeting on July 13, 2005, in Room 34, from 10 am to noon. The President commended Linda Tulett and Charles MacNulty on the manner in which they conducted the meeting.
Today, the President and Director Arntz met with Supervisor Fiona Ma to discuss funding for Outreach, for which no money has been allocated. The Supervisor said that she will try to attend the July 13 Outreach Meeting to hear from the various communities.
7. COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS
President Matthews explained that he added this to the agenda for Commissioners to have a forum for their oversight activities and observations, and he invited all Commissioners to contribute, if they wished.
Commissioner Chung reported that she works with many non-governmental organizations and that these groups have been supportive of the DoE’s budget needs. She said that three of the groups sent letters to the Mayor’s office while it was reviewing the budget. The letters encouraged the Mayor to support the Department’s budget requests.
Commissioner Gleason reported that the President, Director and he went to the Rules Committee meeting last week because that committee was hearing the Charter Amendment to move the Assessor and Public Defender’s election from the Primary to the General Election. He said that the Director mentioned to the Rules Committee that the idea to move the election, and therefore save the City money, came from the Elections Commission. Commissioner Gleason passed around to the Commission a Poll Worker Newsletter he had received in the mail because he worked as a poll worker in the last election. He praised the creation of the newsletter and said it was an excellent tool, because it invites the workers in as part of the process and that the newsletter should have been done long ago. He commended Nataliya Kuzina for coming up with this idea.
President Matthews said that he was impressed that the Newsletter reminded the poll workers of the June 2006 election – which reminded him to note it on his calendar as well.
8. NEW BUSINESS
- Discussion and possible action to approve the minutes for the Commission meeting of May 18, 2005. Commissioner Mendelson MOVED and Commissioner Townsend SECONDED approval of the Minutes. The MOTION to approve the Minutes was amended to include minor corrections. The MOTION to approve the Minutes CARRIED.
- Discussion and possible action to request that the Department of Corrections/Sheriff’s Department routinely notify parolees of their voting rights. Commissioner Mendelson MOVED and Commissioner Safire SECONDED this item.
Commissioner Townsend said that, per his research, felons who are presently incarcerated cannot vote. The issue is that people who are in County Jail, can vote – and there are some felons who do their time in County Jail . He said that he has been discussing this matter with the Director and that the Director is working on an approach to this situation. He said that his feelings are that they should vote until the State says otherwise, as long as it is not illegal to do so. The Commissioner said that another issue is to request that the Secretary of State, through the Department of Corrections and Department of Prisons, inform prisoners when they are released, after serving their time, that they can vote. In addition, if they are on parole, they need to be informed that upon completion of that parole, they can vote.
Commissioner Safire stated that most of the people that the Commissioner is talking about are people who are never sentenced – their position of sentence has been suspended, and they are granted probation. He reminded the Commission that this is a complicated matter.
Commissioner Townsend said that once the matter has cleared the Secretary of State’s office, a flyer could be created to explain to prisoners, at the end of successful completion of their sentences or parole, of their voting rights.
Commissioner Mendelson suggested that this item be given to the Budget and Policy Committee to investigate with the help of Commissioners Townsend and Safire.
Public Comment – Steven Hill suggested that the Commission take this item before the Board of Supervisors. He said that their legislative staff could research its implementation. Mr. Hill suggested that the Commission send a resolution to the Board of Supervisors requesting that the Board create the necessary legislation.
Commissioner Safire informed the Commission that the Public Defender’s office has a program in which criminal records of eligible persons could be expunged free of charge. These prisoners could have their civil rights restored. The Commissioner suggested that the Public Defender be contacted and requested to ask the Board of Supervisors for funding to do this within the Public Defender’s Office.
President Matthews asked Commissioners Townsend and Safire if they would be amenable to work together on this item and bring back, in a month, a resolution for the Board of Supervisors and the Sheriffs’ Department or a recommendation of whatever the Commission’s next move should be. Commissioner Safire said that he would speak to the Public Defender and find out what it would take to put the program together.
DECISION: Commissioner Safire is to meet with the Public Defender and report his findings to the full Elections Commission.
(c) Discussion and possible action to determine topics to be covered at the Elections Commission Retreat on Friday, July 22, 2005, at the Fort Mason Officer’s Club Lounge, from 1:00 pm until 4:00pm. A list of proposed topics is attached to this agenda. President Matthews offered the following additional topics for the Retreat Agenda: Structure of the San Francisco Government; The respective roles of Commissions, Department heads and staff; Overview of the Department’s Budget and the City’s Budget Process; and Restrictions on political and other activities by members of the Elections Commission.
Public Comment – Otto Dufty said that he was looking forward to seeing how a retreat worked with the open sunshine laws.
(d) Discussion and possible action to urge the Board of Supervisors toallocate funds in the next fiscal year for voter education and outreach, including education and outreach concerning ranked-choice voting (RCV). On November 8, 2005, San Francisco will conduct its first City-wide ranked-choice contests for Assessor, City Attorney and Treasurer. Although San Francisco conducted district-wide ranked-choice contests in November 2004, voter education and outreach programs were targeted at voters in those districts only. Those programs ensured that voters had a successful experience with RCV, and that the City fully complied with federal mandates for assistance to voters. To replicate that success, and ensure full compliance with federal voting laws, the outreach and education programs must be expanded to target all voters. Commissioner Gleason MOVED and Commissioner Townsend SECONDED this item. Commissioner Gleason presented the following wording for his motion:
Move that the Elections Commission approve (a) a written communication to the Board of Supervisors Budget & Finance Committee or (b) assign a Commissioner to discuss with the Board of Supervisors Budget & Finance Committee – to urge a specific allocation of funds to be used by the Department of Elections, and possible outside community-based contractors, for an outreach program regarding Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) for the city-wide election to be held November 8, 2005.
Commissioner Townsend suggested a change in the language under (b) of Commissioner Gleason’s motion to read:
(b) assign a Commissioner to support staff in discussions with the Board of Supervisors Budget & Finance Committee.
Commissioner Safire asked if the Commission’s doing this would interfere with the “day-to-day” duties of the Director?
Deputy City Attorney Moll answered that it did not. She said that individual Commissioners can meet with members of the Board of Supervisors to support requests made by the Department.
Commissioner Gleason reminded the Commission that 36% of San Francisco ’s voters were not given Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) instruction/information. The first RCV took place in a “split election” with only some of the districts voting. He said the City has a responsibility to inform the voters in the upcoming election as they did for the voters in the last election.
Commissioner Mendelson suggested that the Commission send a “strong” resolution in support of the item.
Commissioner Chung stated that a resolution would not be strong enough. She said the Commission needs to flush out more information about the need than a resolution format provides. The Commissioner said that a letter would be more descriptive.
President Matthews reminded the members that there is not much time left to get information about the need for outreach to the members of the Board of Supervisors.
Deputy City Attorney Moll suggested a letter be presented by a member of the Commission to the Board. She said the letter can have the same force as a resolution and that this could be accomplished in time.
Commissioner Mendelson made a SUBSTITUTE MOTION: That the President of the Commission be authorized to act on behalf of the Commission to inform the Board of Supervisors, by letter, of the absolute necessity to maximize expenditures on outreach and that further the Commission recognizes its obligation to the citizens of San Francisco to educate them regarding this new voting system they will be using.
Commissioner Gleason requested that the two points he highlighted at the bottom of the page of his MOTION for this item be included: (1.) IT would be wrong to not ensure that the 36% of voters not ACTUALLY exposed to RCV last year have the same opportunity to be informed about it. The specific Supervisorial Districts that did not have RCV voting last year were Districts 4, 6, 8 and 10. (2.) Last year’s RCV inaugural went smoothly BECAUSE of outreach and education. We need to ensure the same this year for RCV to be a success.
President Matthews asked the Deputy City Attorney if it were permissible for him to circulate the letter to the other Commissioners for input without violating any sunshine laws. Ms. Moll replied that it was permissible only if the document were available, at all points of its circulation, for public viewing.
Public Comment – David Pilpel said that he agreed with the plan to present a letter to the Board. Steven Hill said he has spoken to several Supervisors and their aides and that he feels there will be support among the Supervisors for funding outreach. He said that one page outlining the amount needed for outreach should be presented to the Supervisors.
The MOTION made was to authorize the President to act on behalf of the Commission to inform the Board of Supervisors of the pressing need to authorize funds for voter outreach with consultation with the Director of the Elections and fellow member of the Commission to ensure that the letter is inclusive of the strong urgency of the need for these funds, as well as to provide a resolution outlining this need with the letter.
Roll Call vote was unanimous. Motion CARRIED.
- Discussion and possible action to appoint a Commissioner or a committee of Commissioners to investigate the ways and means of having all-postal-return elections for all elections in San Francisco, including but not limited to: identifying which sections of the California Elections Code would have to be amended in order for San Francisco to undertake all-postal elections; studying the Oregon method of conducting statewide elections solely by mail; conferring with the Director of Elections about the operational requirements of conducting all-postal elections in San Francisco; and any other topic necessary for the Commission to make informed choices about whether to pursue this method of voting. Commissioner Mendelson MOVED and Commissioner Chung SECONDED the item.
Commissioner Townsend said that he would be opposed to an all postal-return election system because he feels the City should be increasing not decreasing the ways in which voters can cast their ballots.
Commissioner Mendelson suggested that this item be referred to the Budget and Policy Committee for investigation and public input, and MOVED to commit this topic to the Budget and Policy Committee. SECONDED by Commissioner Safire.
Public Comment – David Pilpel said that the Budget and Policy Committee is the proper place to hear this item and that this subject could not be implemented until state law is changed. Steven Hill said it was an interesting proposal worth further investigation and suggested using “regional” precincts in addition to all-postal-ballots, which would be a great cost savings. Mr. Hill said that a state law is not necessary because the City of Berkeley already has an all-postal-ballot, and said this would be a good way to handle elections with traditionally low voter turnouts, special elections and elections when there are few items/candidates on the ballot.
The roll call vote to send this item to the Budget and Policy Committee CARRIED unanimously.
- Overview of the Department of Elections. The Director of Elections will provide an overview of each Division that includes essential election-related activities. Director Arntz highlighted the work done by the DoE’s divisions:
Voter Services – Its regular five-person staff maintains the database of all voter registration information. The division is responsible for coverage of the early voting counter in City Hall. During an election period, the staff increases by approximately 45 persons.
Campaign Services – The division staffs the front desk of the department and answers questions from visitors and phone calls. The processing of candidate information, paid arguments, information from the Board of Supervisors for the ballot measures, and the phone bank during elections (bi-lingual operators in four languages), are handled by this division.
Poll Locating – This division’s work is continuous throughout the year. Staff goes door to door asking citizens if they can offer their property as a polling site. The Division also works with the School District, Recreation Centers and churches to identify ADA accessible locations. A main goal is to have consistent polling locations.
Budget / Personnel – This is the Director’s primary area of responsibility in which he forecasts expenses and pays the department’s bills. The division works within the City’s policies and is constantly streamlining its processes.
Poll Worker Division – This division is responsible for hiring and training sufficient numbers of workers for the polls. Each election is different and poll workers need to be trained regarding new information and policies. Language accessibility will be emphasized in future elections.
Ballot Distribution – In addition to the complicated task of getting the ballots to the proper locations, this division also runs the elections for the Retirement Board, Health Services and business districts (there have been three of these elections in the last six months). The division is responsible for receiving, storing and canvassing (accounting) all the voted and non-voted ballots.
Public Comment – David Pilpel complimented the department on its improvement over the last several years. Mr. Pilpel reminded the Commission that Supervisor Alioto-Pier is sponsoring a Charter amendment to set standards for certain commission and task force members. Steven Hill said that the phone bank was a great innovation and helped make RCV a success during the last election. Otto Dufty said he is concerned about the new Secretary of State’s decision about how that office will the spend money on new voting systems. Mr. Dufty held up a lottery ticket and said it was an example of how much information can be recorded and counted on a small piece of paper and suggested that the same could be done for the very large ballots that San Franciscans are given.
ADJOURNMENT at 8:25 pm.