Elections Commission
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002
City and County of San Francisco
Elections Commission
Approved: February 04, 2004
Minutes of the Meeting held
January 07, 2004
1. CALL TO ORDER. Meeting was called to order at 7:02 pm.
2. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Robert Kenealey, Thomas Schulz, Brenda Stowers, Richard Shadoian, Arnold Townsend, Vice President Michael Mendelson and President Alix Rosenthal. ABSENT: None.
3. Public Comment Otto Duffy commented on the relationships between political clubs, candidates and Ranked Choice Voting (RCV). He said that clubs use RCV in selecting their endorsements, but when there are a large number of candidates, it is difficult to determine the winner. Mr. Duffy concluded that this would be the case if the City uses RCV in its elections.
4. Director’s Report.
March 2, 2004 Election – The ballot and Voter’s Guide formats are nearing completion. Printing of these will begin on Monday.
Poll Worker Recruitment – Poll workers are being signed up and classes are being scheduled.
Campaign Services Division – Candidate ballot designation authorizations have been completed.
Voter Services Division – Voter rolls are being updated with the address changes of voters.
Personnel Update – The Department is working to make all personnel requisitions permanent. Three 1403 Lead Clerk positions have been made permanent and we are currently working on doing the same for three Class 1471 Elections Worker – these will be supervisory positions. By the beginning of the new fiscal year, most of the DoE’s staffing will have permanent or provisional status.
Ranked Choice Voting – Yesterday, Elections Systems and Software (ES&S), and the department agreed to use the eagle optical scan system to provide the system the DoE will use to implement RCV for the November 2004 election. The Request for Proposal process is now ended. The monies that will be applied to this contract are the same as were on reserve because the previous contact was not fulfilled. The Secretary of State (SOS) will be providing an exemption to ES&S to be used conditionally for the November 2004 Election. The Letter of Mutual Agreement between the DoE and ES&S was signed earlier today. The timelines in the agreement are very workable for having the system tested and for the Department to plan and implement its voter outreach.
5. President’s Report
Commissioner Rosenthal reported that she is in the process of formulating the agenda for the February 22, 2004, Elections Commission Retreat. The aim will be to have discussion that will not require DoE staff present due to the closeness of the retreat to the March 2, 2004 Election. The President shared her preliminary list of topics and asked the Commissioners to contact her with any additions or suggestions. The list included: Discussion of ethical constraints of Commissioners and Charter requirements; actions of members as Commissioners and as private citizens; Elections Commission committee structure; Commissioners’ relationships to their appointing officers; bylaws; job descriptions of Commission officers; how topics are placed on the agenda; and sunshine and public records requirements. President Rosenthal stated that it is her goal to finalize the retreat agenda at the next Elections Commission meeting.
(a) Discussion and possible approval of Elections Commission Minutes for the Commission Meeting Held on December 17, 2003.
Commissioner Schulz requested that a statement he made regarding his goal when he was President of the Commission to keep the Department out of the newspapers, the lack of negative press regarding the DoE’s activities during the December Runoff Election and his congratulations to the Director and staff be included in these minutes. MOTION to approve the December 17, 2003, Minutes with the addition of Commissioner Schulz’ amendment CARRIED.
(b) Discussion regarding procedures for evaluation of the Commission Secretary and Director, including presentation by representative of the Department of Human Resources.
Paul Van Houten, Director of Training at the Training and Organizational Development Division of the Department of Human Resources (DHR), gave a slide presentation explaining the tools and procedures available for the evaluation of City employees.
Mr. Van Houten advised the Commission that there is a one-day workshop that DHR provides to departments.
President Rosenthal suggested that each Commissioner be given an appraisal form to evaluate, for example, the Commission Secretary. Then the Commission could meet in closed session to combine the comments into one overall form.
Mr. Van Houten responded that he felt that this plan would be workable.
Deputy City Attorney Julia Moll stated that she has worked with other Commissions and observed that they used the system described by President Rosenthal. By combining the appraisals into one, the employee is not forced to meet a variety of different expectations.
President Rosenthal said that it might be best for the Commission to develop an appropriate job description first, supply that to the employee, and then Commissioners can fill out an appraisal form based on the description.
Commissioner Townsend suggested that the Director and the Commission Secretary be consulted in developing the job descriptions, because they know best what they do on a day-to-day basis.
Commissioner Schulz suggested that the Commissioners develop what they view the job and objectives to be and the employee should do the same. Mr. Schulz reminded everyone that draft criteria had been developed over eighteen months ago for the Director of Elections but were not implemented due to the removal of the former Director.
Commissioner Stowers said that, in her experience as a manager in the corporate sector, the employee writes the objectives of her/his position. If the manager doesn’t know what the employee does daily in her/his position, the manager can conduct a peer review, asking others in similar positions for their feedback.
Commissioner Townsend expressed his opinion that nothing is needed to be done if a person is getting the job done. If that is not the case, then the Commission should ask for the reasons. If the person is determined to not be able to do the job, then the Commission should seek a replacement. Commissioner Townsend cautioned the Commission from insinuating itself, too much, into what employees do.
Vice President Mendelson reminded the Commission that DHR had been fully involved in the recruiting, testing and selection of the present Director and Commission Secretary. Mr. Mendelson asked Mr. Van Houten if he had experience in assisting Commissions in evaluating a Director whose position is laid out in the City Charter.
Mr. Van Houten responded that he had not.
Vice President Mendelson suggested that the Commission meet as a Committee of the whole and make a determination based on the DHR Job Description for recruitment and as described in the City Charter to make its evaluation. The Commissioner stated that the format provided to the Commission by Mr. Van Houten has some value, and can be followed for evaluating these two employees, particularly the Director.
Mr. Van Houten suggested that the Commission check with other Commissions who evaluate the performance of their department heads.
Commissioner Schulz said that it is necessary to have a discussion with the Director and Secretary to let them know what the Commission expects of them because, otherwise, these employees are in the “uncomfortable position of not knowing what we want of them.”
Commissioner Stowers said that, in her experience, the objectives are written by the individual employee. The Commission would then look at these objectives, say that it understands that these are the things the employee wants to do, and then the Commission determines if the objectives are within the guidelines of the job description. Ms. Stowers stated that the employee should be stretching to accomplish growth and that the Commission should be pushing the employee towards that goal. The Commissioner said that she didn’t feel the Commission should be telling the Secretary or Director what the Commission’s expectations are, but it should be what these employees perceive is their duty within the overall guise of the job description they were given when they were hired.
Deputy City Attorney Moll stated that evaluation of the Director, and his goal setting on an annual basis may be tied to some monetary compensation. Once the Commission determines that the goals have been achieved, the compensation is granted. For this and other reasons, the evaluation process is important for the position of Director.
President Rosenthal stated that, with the approval of the other Commissioners, she would develop a process, based on tonight’s discussions and the presentation by the DHR representative, and present it, probably at the next meeting.
MEETING WENT INTO RECESS at 8:05 pm.
MEETING RECONVENED at 8:15 pm.
(c)(d) Discussion regarding the role of the Commission in the implementation of Ranked Choice Voting (RCV); Discussion and possible action to approve the attached resolution regarding the implementation of RCV for the November 2004 [COMBINED].
Commissioner Kenealey MOVED to approve the attached Resolution. Commissioner Schulz SECONDED.
Public Comment. Caleb Kleppner congratulated the Commission and Department for running the last three successful elections within a very short time frame, for eliminating the use of touch screen technology for RCV in November 2004, and keeping the current vendor.
Commissioner Townsend stated that he was uncomfortable in passing a resolution for something the Commission is already required to do.
Commissioner Shadoian said that the purpose of the resolution was to restate the Commission’s intent.
Commissioner Mendelson said that the resolution, as presented, requests the Director to do certain acts that transcend the Commission’s supervisory role, for example: “regularly request updates.” This, the Commissioner said, is not a general policy, it is directing him (the Director) to do something. Mr. Mendelson said that these parts of the resolution interfere with the Director’s ability to use his discretion. The Commissioner MOVED that these sections be removed from the resolution.
Commission Schulz suggested that the wording on the four final “resolved” portions of the resolution be changed as follows:
THEREFORE be it resolved:
- That the Commission will encourage the Department to work with the vendor.
- That the Commission will encourage the Department to regularly request updates from the Secretary of State and ….
- That the Commission will encourage the Department to initiate a program to educate voters about Ranked Choice Voting.
- DELETE the last “resolved” statement.
Commissioner Shadoian SECONDED this amendment.
Public Comments. Eric Allen said that the resolution wasn’t necessary because it is already the law. He said he felt it was grandstanding and that the Commission was getting more involved in the day-to-day workings of the Department and the Director. Mr. Allen said that the DoE was doing well without all the interference.
Roll Call Vote on the amendment to the resolution: Kenealey-No; Schulz –Yes; Stowers-No; Shadoian-Yes; Townsend-Yes; Mendelson-No; Rosenthal-Yes. The motion CARRIED.
Roll Call Vote to approve the resolution, as amended, regarding the implementation of Ranked Choice Voting for the November 2004 election: Kenealey-No; Schulz –Yes; Stowers-No; Shadoian-Yes; Townsend-Yes; Mendelson-No; Rosenthal-Yes. The motion CARRIED.
(e) Discussion and possible action to make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors regarding the selection of official ballot arguments.
Budget and Policy Committee Chairperson Brenda Stowers reported that the Committee had met just prior to the current Commission Meeting and had determined to continue its discussions after obtaining more information. The Committee seeks the following from the Deputy City Attorney: A legal opinion on the constitutionality of limiting the number of arguments that could be submitted. From the Director of Elections, the Committee requests a written report of how the Department currently makes its determination of ballot arguments. The reports will be made available to the Committee one week prior to the next Committee meeting that will be February 4, 2004.
7. Public Comment. Eric Allen suggested that the Director give a press release, monthly, on the status of RCV. He said that this would be a better way to inform the public rather than a resolution.
Commissioner Schulz informed the Commission that he would be on vacation and absent for the next two regularly scheduled Commission meetings.
ADJOURNMENT at 8:41 pm.
Attached is the Approved Resolution:
San Francisco Elections Commission
Resolution 01-02-04-1
Whereas, the voters of San Francisco passed Proposition A in March 2002 requiring the Department of Elections (“Department”) to implement Ranked Choice Voting before the November 2003 election; and
Whereas, the Department and its vendor were unable to implement Ranked Choice Voting for the November 2003 municipal election as required by law; and
Whereas, the city’s vendor is attempting to complete an application with the Secretary of State’s office to certify modifications to the city’s existing voting equipment in order to conduct Ranked Choice Voting elections;
Therefore, be it
resolved, that it is the intention of the Elections Commission that Ranked Choice Voting will be implemented for the November 2004 election;
that the Elections Commission will do everything possible to assist the Department in implementing Ranked Choice Voting by November 2004;
that the Commission will encourage the Department to work with the vendor to complete its application before the Secretary of State’s office and to facilitate holding a hearing before the Voting Systems and Procedures Panel as soon as possible;
that the Commission will encourage the Department to regularly request updates from both the Secretary of State and the vendor regarding the progress of the vendor’s application and any estimates as to when its constituent parts will be complete; and
that the Commission will encourage the Department to initiate a program to educate voters about Ranked Choice Voting.
Done this 7th day of January, 2004
I so attest: __________________________
Shirley Rodriques
Secretary, San Francisco Elections Commission