Elections Commission
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002
City and County of San Francisco
Elections Commission
Approved: August 20, 2008
Minutes of the Meeting held
City Hall, Room 408
July 16, 2008
- President Gleason called the meeting to order at 6:06 pm.
2. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners, Gerard Gleason, Richard P. Matthews, Winnie Yu, Jennifer Meek, Joseph B. Phair, Rosabella Safont, Deputy City Attorney Mollie Lee and Director John Arntz. EXCUSED: Commissioner Arnold Townsend.
3. Announcements. Vice President Jennifer Meek announced that she will be moving to Oakland and this would be her last meeting. She has sent her letter of resignation to the Board of Education and will work on the Commission until the end of the month.
President Gleason announced that items 7 (b) and (d) will be covered in the Director’s Report if the Director so chooses.
4. Public Comment. Richard Rothman, a San Francisco voter, presented his idea for cutting costs - that households receiving more than one VIP (Voter Information Pamphlet) only receive one. He said that both he and his wife receive VIPs for each election and toss the extra one. Mr. Rothman has written a letter to the Board of Supervisors letting them know his idea and is asking the Commission to consider his idea for discussion at a future meeting. Gerry Hayes said that voter instructions are sometimes complicated and difficult for voters to understand, and especially for citizens who can’t read or write. She suggested more pictures and simple diagrams that demonstrate voting procedures to help those voters.
5. Director’s Report. Director Arntz reported that the canvass for the June Election has been completed. The manual tallies matched all ballots.
Budget and Personnel – The supplemental appropriation was approved by the Board of Supervisors. Preparations for the November Election have begun with the new budget.
RCV (Ranked Choice Voting) – Sequoia Voting Systems has an application at the Secretary of State’s (SoS) office. One part of that application is not completed and the SoS is requesting an explanation for every change of code since the last review. The changes have not been just for RCV, but for other components and the SoS is reviewing this as a new voting system. Sequoia plans to complete its application with the code changes from its previous version in the next two weeks.
Commissioner Phair asked if the DoE has a contingency plan to count the votes if the Sequoia system is not ready for RCV in November. Director Arntz replied that such a plan was designed in 2002, and is a detailed hand count system for ranked choice voting that is still viable. Commissioner Phair asked the Director to notify the Commission if it appears that the alternative plan will need to be used. The Director agreed to do so and to keep the Commission posted with RCV updates, which he has done in the past.
Commissioner Matthews asked if the SoS gave permission to use the machines for the first pass (in the November Election), would this be helpful. Director Arntz said it depended on the contest. He said he prefers that votes be audited at the polling place, and this is what the machines provide there.
Campaign Services – The signatures in lieu petitions are being handed out. Local measures and petitions are being returned and are being reviewed. August 1, 2008 is the deadline for measures and July 25, 2008 is the deadline for Charter Amendments.
Outreach – Staff have been attending Naturalization ceremonies, and registered 535 new voters yesterday. This was a one day record for the Division. The latest edition of the Elections Connection Newsletter has been released. Voting materials are being reviewed for language updates.
Poll Locating/ADA – Staff have sent payment stipends letters to past polling sites and enclosed letters requesting to use the sites again this November. Issues that were problematic for the last election are being reviewed. New sites are being scouted to replace some which proved inadequate due to space or amenities during the last election. Polling place equipment is being inventoried with the new bar scanning program.
Publications – Staff, immediately after June, began to ready available information for the November election such as the common pages for the VIP, masthead for the November ballots and requesting tent colors for those ballots.
Ballot Simplification Committee – Begins meeting the end of this month. Although the Committee has lost a member, a new member has been located and is awaiting approval from the Board of Supervisors.
Technology Division – Staff is preparing an on-line look up system for voters to determine if they are registered. Voters will type in their address, birthday and last name and the system will let them know their voting status. This is planned to be completed next week.
Voter Services – Staff is conducting petition reviews and voter roll purges. Forty-two thousand postcards will be sent to voters who have failed to vote in the last two federal elections and have no change of addresses to determine if these voters are still active. If the cards are returned signed, their status will be active, but if no response is received, they will be inactivated. This does not cancel the voter’s registration, they can still go to the polls on election day or come to City Hall, give the DoE their name, and vote. Putting them on the inactive list saves money because they are not sent VIPs and other materials the Department sends to active voters.
Commissioner Phair asked the Director what happens if the card is returned with “return to sender” noted by the post office. Director Arntz responded that that voter would be listed as inactive.
Vice President Meek congratulated the DoE for the new data base that will allow voters to check their voting status.
President Gleason asked if there will be enough time to reflect the existence of the new voter status data base on the Provisional Ballot Envelopes for the November 2008 Election. Director Arntz replied that voters can always call the Department on Election Day to determine their voting status.
President Gleason called the Director’s attention to the capacity of the ballot holding compartment in the current voting machines compared to the old Eagles and the potential size of the November 2008 ballot with state and proposed local measures on it. He asked if the Department has plans for handling and storing these voted ballots on election day. The Director replied that the ballots will need to be removed and held outside the machines, as was done in June at some busy polling sites.
President Gleason suggested that the Department notify voters of the size of the ballot, the possibility of long lines and encourage voters to vote by mail. Director Arntz said that staff hasn’t talked about those issues yet, but they will.
Vice President Meek suggested that pollworkers be trained that voters do not have to mark their ballot at the booth, but can vote, if they wish, at a table. This could expedite the process, especially if lines are long in November.
Commissioner Phair reminded the Commission and the Director that because the ballot is expected to be a long one, that the process for removing ballots from the voting machine bins and bagging them be explained in the Election Plan.
Public Comment. Gerry Hayes said that some pollworkers who worked the last election did not have the actual voting machines to examine and practice with during their training. She said that this should not be the case for the November 2008 Election.
Commissioner Matthews asked Ms. Hayes if she had first hand knowledge of pollworkers not having machines at their training classes.
Ms. Hayes said that she had trained to be a pollworker and did have machines, but according to a newspaper article she read, some pollworkers did not.
Commissioner Phair said that this concern was mentioned in the recent Civil Grand Jury report. The report cited a visit to one of the classes in which the voting machines were not yet available during training that was held earlier in the year.
- Commissioners’ Reports
Commissioner Matthews reported on observations he made of the June 3, 2008, Consolidated Primary election that he had not shared at the previous meeting. He said the practice described in the Election Plan of extracting the ballots from the Absentee Ballot envelope where in they are to be face down so that the name of the voter is not visible, was not always done when he observed the extraction process. He observed staff carefully looking at the front of the envelope before turning it over and extracting the ballot. When the Commissioner asked the supervisor why this was happening, he was advised that this was a quality control issue. Commissioner Matthews asked the Director the reason for the procedure since it was not in the Election Plan nor the stated policy in the DoE Newsletter nor what has been done in the past.
Director Arntz explained that the mailing of absentee ballots was out-sourced to Sequoia Voting Systems for the June 2008 Election. They mailed 1600 ballots to voters with the wrong precinct, party or ballot type. Those ballots were re-mailed and cancelled once the DoE discovered the problem. Sixty-five of the first mailed ballots were voted and seven to eight hundred of the second ballots were voted. Staff were comparing the party and ballot type information on the top of the ballot to the label on the absentee envelopes to check for more mistakes of which the Department might not be aware. Staff made this decision on their own, and after a few days it was determined that very few mistakes were found, and the procedure was stopped.
Director Arntz said that he notified the vendor that it must have safe guards in place to prevent this situation from happening in the future, and to notify him of those controls and safe guards. The Director said he will keep the Commission informed of this process with Sequoia Systems.
Commissioner Matthews asked if out-sourcing this work saves money for the City. Director Arntz said that, for this work, it saves a lot of time for staff, and therefore saves money.
7. Old Business
Discussion and possible action regarding randomization and posting of precinct election results from use of the DRE (Direct Recording Electronic) voting machines at polling sites and related procedures that occurred during June 3, 2008 Statewide Primary Elections in San Francisco. Report back on discussion of issue with representatives of the Office of the California Secretary of State. [Gleason]
President Gleason reported that he and Commissioner Matthews discussed this matter last Tuesday with the SoS via telephone. They were able to present Commissioner Matthews’ power point presentation during the conversation. Lowell Finney and Evan Goldberg, both Senior Deputies, represented the SoS on the call.
Mr. Finley said “Two key conditions of the October 5, 2007, reapproval of the Sequoia Voting System are (1) a restriction to use one Sequoia Edge DRE per precinct and (2) a requirement that all votes cast on the Edge must be manually tallied using the voter verifiable paper audit trail (VVPAT).”
President Gleason said the SoS is requiring a 100% manual tally of DRE votes. In addition to the manual audit, the SoS requires that “to protect voter privacy, in instances in which as least one voter has cast their ballot on the DRE, jurisdictions are required to ensure that at least five persons voluntarily cast their ballot on the device over the course of Election Day.”
President Gleason offered two statements which he proposed be used by pollworkers. The current statement discussed by the Commission last January: “You will be issued a paper ballot unless you prefer a touch screen audio ballot”; or another response in case only a single voter in a precinct has opted to use the DRE, “Would you prefer a paper or touch screen audio ballot?” This statement would be used with each voter until there have been five voters who have used the DRE. Once the goal of five voters has been reached, pollworkers will return to using the first statement. He said he forwarded these suggestions to the Director.
Deputy City Attorney Lee reminded the Commission of its responsibility to create policy but not to interfere with the day-to-day operations of the DoE. She suggested that the Commission consider its proposal as a “general policy” proposal.
President Gleason said that there are other solutions to this SoS requirement and that some are mechanical like those taken by one county, whose vendor is not Sequoia, that turns off the tabulation device which satisfies that there is no report to post at the polling site.
The President reminded the Commission that Sequoia Voting Systems demonstrated a device at an Elections Commission meeting that combined the totals of the DRE and the optical scanning voting machine at each precinct called the HATT (Hybrid Activated Transmitter) device, however this is not what San Francisco has. There are two devices that do this and only one is certified. The SoS reminded the Commissioners during their telephone meeting that what is posted outside the polling sites are unofficial totals. Therefore, President Gleason said, there are ways the SoS can allow us to use a device that does not have full certification because the results are not official. President Gleason said he is looking for a zero dollar solution.
Commissioner Matthews said that the Commission does have the right to adopt policy and the Department must follow that policy as long as the policy doesn’t advocate something illegal like deviating from the SoS’s conditional certification. The Commission’s policies must be followed, but the Commission doesn’t determine how it is implemented.
Deputy City Attorney Lee agreed that this is an accurate interpretation of the law with the clarification that policy stays at the level of policy and doesn’t intrude on the day-to-day operations of the Department.
Public Comment. Gloria Everett, a member of the 2007-2008 Grand Jury, Introduced herself and said she was very pleased to hear the Commission’s discussion on this item. She said the Grand Jury was very pleased with the cooperation of the Department in their study, and she is present to hear the Commissions’ comments regarding the Grand Jury Report later on the agenda.
(b) Discussion and possible action to adopt a policy that preference is given to the use of paper ballots for voting in all public elections in San Francisco, that DRE machines are not regarded as preferable or even equally desirable except for voters who would prefer to use DRE for any reason, and that voters will not be “encouraged” to use DRE machines rather than paper ballots; and that the Department of Elections shall ensure that all employee and pollworker training includes material that reinforces this policy. [Matthews]
Commissioner Matthews asked the Deputy City Attorney if the item was proper in form for a policy. Deputy City Attorney Lee agreed that it was, but it might be helpful to add specific wording that the policy is not requiring the Director to do anything inconsistent with the SoS’s conditional recertification.
Commissioner Matthews said that now that he has reviewed the certification, he has found that it is not neutral about DRE. It has five pages that criticise the DRE. He called the Commission’s attention to Page 5 of the certification which states in bold: Therefore, I, Debra Bowen, Secretary State for the State of California, find and determine all of this equipment which was previously approved, is found and determined to be defective or unexceptable and its certification is withdrawn….except as specifically provided below. Commissioner Matthews concluded that the Commission does not have to be neutral and the wording in our policy does not have to be neutral. He said that the policy proposed by the Commission is in complete harmony with the SoS.
Deputy City Attorney Lee pointed out one area of the policy that she said was of concern, “that voters will not be encouraged to use DRE machines rather than paper ballots” this might conflict with the SoS’s language which says, “jurisdictions are required to ensure that at least five persons voluntarily cast their ballots.”
Commissioner Matthews pointed out the word “voluntarily” and said that this was discussed in the telephone meeting with the SoS.
Commissioner Phair suggested the following: leave the policy as stated in the item, and at the end add, “all in conformity with the requirements of the California Secretary of State now in effect or as enacted or amended in the future.” Commissioner Matthews agreed to this addition.
Commissioner Phair asked the Director about his preference in this policy discussion. Director Arntz said that the main thing for him is that the system works, it’s easy to take care off, it’s easy to test, it’s easy to get out to and return from the polling sites, it doesn’t brake down, and for him it doesn’t matter what type of balloting is used as long as these conditions are satisfied. He said paper ballots are what voters have trusted most in San Francisco. The Director said that this policy mirrors, minus a few “tweaks”, what happens in San Francisco, a paper based system.
Commissioner Safont asked if it was necessary to make a policy to get the Director to change the instructions to pollworkers regarding encouragement of voters to use the DRE machines for the November 2008 Election, or could the Director do this without a policy.
Director Arntz explained that the DoE’s intent was never to create the perception that the Department is encouraging pollworkers. To answer Commissioner Safont’s question, Director Arntz said that the Department would try to find a way “through this” where people are satisfied.
Commissioner Matthews said that the 100 percent ballot tally is good and essential and it isn’t completely valid because the validity depends on each individual voter having read his/her segment on the tape as it scrolls on the DRE. He said usability studies of the machines show that this does not happen, and in the case of visually impaired voters, it can not happen.
THIS ITEM WAS TABLED TO THE CALL OF THE CHAIR FOR DECEMBER 2008.
(c). Discussion and possible action regarding line items related to the City’s proposed budget for the Department and Commission, including staffing for Department and Commission. [Commission]
Commissioner Phair reported that he contacted Supervisor Elsbernd by email to encourage him, as a member of the Budget Committee, to do whatever he could to ensure that the Elections Commission Secretary’s position was not cut further from 75%, and expressed that the Commission’s desire was for full time funding. Commissioner Phair explained in his communication that the Secretary was the only support staff for the seven-member Commission. The Supervisor replied that he appreciated the Commission’s comments and that he would do what he could but he wasn’t sure what could be done given the fiscal situation.
Commissioner Phair asked the Director if he had any update. Director Arntz responded that the budget has not been changed, and the Secretary’s position remains at 50% time. Vice President Meek said that this is of great concern because the Commission is planning to have two meetings a month plus a Committee meeting and this puts a strain on the Secretary who must also take care of the paperwork involved in bringing new Commissioners on board, postings, correspondence from voters, etc. She suggested cutting meetings to one per month, which falls short of the duties the Charter requires of the Elections Commission. Vice President Meek suggested documenting to the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor’s Office that we respect their decision, and because the Commission now does not have the staffing it needs to function under its
Chartered duties, we will fall short of our responsibilities.
Commissioner Phair asked if the Department proposed a 50% position. Director Arntz responded that the position has been funded by the City at .5 percent for the last two years.
Commission Secretary Rodriques added that the position was .5 percent and the Director of Elections was able to find an additional .25 percent from his budget to bring the salary to .75 percent for the past two years. However, due to cuts in the Department’s budget, he is not able to continue the .25 percent addition to the Commission Secretary’s salary for the upcoming fiscal year.
Vice President Meek suggested that the Commission send a letter to the Board documenting that the Commission cannot fulfill its role because of the budget cut so that the situation is clearly documented.
Commissioner Safont said that she agreed and that a letter should be sent to the President of the Board of Supervisors, Supervisors and the Mayor’s Office with a copy to the Controller’s Office so that everyone is aware that this is a serious issue, and the Commissioners will not be able to perform their duties without proper support because they are all volunteers.
Commissioner Safont MOVED and Vice President Meek SECONDED that a letter be sent to the Board, Mayor and City Controller regarding the hardship that having a half time Commission Secretary places on the Commission in performing its duties under the Charter.
Vice President Meek volunteered to write the letter.
The Roll Call Vote was UNANIMOUS to send the letter.
8. New Business
- Discussion and possible action to approve the Minutes of the
June 18, 2008 Commission Meeting. President Gleason requested a change in the wording of what he said under “announcements” to read that he informed the City Treasurer that the Commission cancelled a meeting recently because it didn’t have a quorum, and that his appointment would be very much appreciated. Commissioner Matthews MOVED and Vice President Meek SECONDED approval of the minutes with the changes requested by President Gleason.
The Roll Call Vote was UNANIMOUS to approve the minutes with corrections.
NOTE: Items 8(b) and 8(d) were discussed under the Director’s Report earlier in this meeting.
c. Discussion and possible action regarding response to 2007-2008 Civil Grand Jury Report: A Year of Five Elections for the City/County of San Francisco (released July 3, 2008) [Commission]
Commissioner Richard P. Matthews shared with the Commission that in addition to being a former member of the San Francisco Civil Grand Jury, he has served as trainer of the incoming Civil Grand Juries for the past four years.
Commissioner Matthews presented a first draft of the Commission’s response to the 2007-2008 report and he summarized the procedure as: Responding bodies have 60 days to respond, except for the Board of Supervisors. For findings, each body has to respond in one of two ways – yes, we agree with the finding, or we disagree wholly or partially. In either case the body must explain.
Regarding recommendations, the body must respond to each, as “the recommendation has been implemented (with some description of how), the recommendation is not yet been implemented but it will be (with a time frame and explanation of implementation), the recommendation requires further analysis (with some explanation of the scope and parameters of that analysis and a time frame) or no, the recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted, or not reasonable (with an explanation).
Commissioner Matthews reviewed his draft with the Commission and a copy of the draft is attached as an addendum to these minutes.
Due to the deadline for responses, the Commission must approve its answer at the next regularly scheduled meeting, or call a special meeting. Commissioner Matthews offered to bring his laptop and make any changes at the time of discussion at that meeting, and asked for suggestions from members. Commissioner Safont thanked Commissioner Matthews for all the effort he put in producing his draft, and this was seconded by several of the members. Commissioner Phair asked Commissioner Matthews to send him the draft electronically so he could insert his suggestions and return it to him.
Deputy City Attorney Lee suggested that all communication regarding the response to the Grand Jury Report be sent through the Commission Secretary who can distribute information to all members.
ACTION: Commissioner Matthews will incorporate all suggestions made by Commissioners at this meeting, send the second draft to the Commission Secretary who will forward to the full Commission, and make a copy available to the public.
e. Review, discussion and possible action regarding Elections Commission member roles and activities related to observation and evaluation of public elections. [Gleason]
This item was CARRIED OVER to the next meeting at the request of the President.
f. Discussion and possible action to evaluate the effectiveness of the Election Plan for the April 8, 2008 Special Election.
This item was CARRIED OVER to the next meeting at the request of the President.
g. Discussion and possible action to evaluate the effectiveness of the Election Plan for the June 3, 2008 Consolidated Primary Election.
This item was CARRIED OVER to the next meeting at the request of the President.
- Discussion and possible action in response to request from San Francisco Department of Human Resources regarding Department Head Performance Plan and Appraisal (PPA) Report. [Commission] Director Arntz presented his self-assessment and goals, which he passed out to the Commission.
Deputy City Attorney Lee explained that the criteria for the Director’s Performance and Appraisal are discussed in a public forum, while the actual evaluation will occur in Closed Session.
President Gleason asked if a member of the Commission could be assigned to fill out the form. Deputy City Attorney Lee said the Commission has the authority to assign those responsibilities to a particular member.
The Commission goal tonight is to determine the criteria for the appraisal.
Commissioner Matthews MOVED that the plan in the Commission Packet be adopted as the relevant Department Head Performance Plan and Appraisal Form as amended by the Director of Elections with his self-assessment, especially as to pages 6 and 7. Commissioner Phair SECONDED.
The Commission Secretary was assigned to forward the suggestions from the members (from the audio tapes) at this meeting to Commissioner Safont who will make the changes discussed, and sign off on the revised form.
The Roll Call Vote was unanimous to prepare and send this Performance Plan with the changes suggested and Commissioner Safont’s sign off to the Citywide PPA Committee by the deadline of July 18, 2008.
ADJOURNMENT at 9:26 pm
ATTACHMENTS:
grand jury response draft
public comments