Elections Commission
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002
City andCounty of San Francisco
Elections Commission
Approved: January 16, 2008
Minutes of the Meeting held
December 19, 2007
1. President Meek called the meeting to order at 6:09 pm.
2. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Arnold Townsend, Gerard Gleason, Richard P. Matthews, Winnie Yu, Jennifer Meek, Deputy City Attorney Ann O’Leary and Director John Arntz. EXCUSED: Commissioner Tajel Shah.
3. ANNOUNCEMENTS: President Meek introduced the Commission’s newest appointee, Joseph B. Phair. Commissioner Phair gave a brief history of his employment and said that he was happy to be on the Commission.
3. PUBLIC COMMENT. Dr. Ahimsa Porter Sumchai, a candidate for Mayor in the November election who lives in district 4, said that she filed a compaint at the Department of Elections regarding not receiving a VIP (Voter Information Pamphlet) in her mail a week before the election. Her VIP arrived on Saturday, November 3, 2007. Dr. Sumchai said that when she visited the department, she signed a list that contained the names and precincts of other voters who had the same complaint. Additionally, she was a ballot proponent in the June 2006 for the Laguna Honda Hospital measure and she said didn’t receive her VIP for that election and filed a complaint at that time. She said that, as a candidate, she was concerned that the failure of voters to receive their VIPs favored incumbent candidates. She suggested there might have been “some deliberate effort to engineer the election”, and she filed a complaint with the SOS (Secretary of State’s Office). Dr. Sumchai asked for documentation of the scope of missing and delayed VIPs for the November 2007 election, and what the Department plans to do about this problem in the future.
Director Arntz said that the DoE (Department of Elections) sent out 420,000 VIPs but wasn’t prepared to state how many complaints have been received. He will provide the total complaints to the Commission. Commissioner Gleason asked if the command center report of complaints received include the list of VIP late and/or non-arrival complaints, in the future. Director Arntz agreed to include this information in the future.
David Pilpel said that he lives in District 4, as well, and did receive his VIP and absentee ballot in a timely fashion. He asked when the effectiveness of the November election would be discussed by the Commission. President Meek replied that the item had been removed from this agenda because of the extensive Director’s Report of the November election, because it was delayed. The effectiveness of the election will be heard at the January Commission meeting. Mr. Pilpel asked that the names of the Commissioners who originate new business items be noted on these agenda items. He suggested that the DoE save one of the old ES&S (Elections Systems and Software) voting machines for a City Election History Archive. Finally, Mr. Pilpel suggested that the Commission might want to send a letter to the state regarding its failure to follow its own legal deadlines for submission of measures and referenda for elections. He said these late additions have an impact on Counties and their ballot design and translations of these additions. These delays effect the completion and mailing of the VIPs.
Alec Bash reminded the Commission of Supervisor Ammiano’s proposed Task Force to explore open source code. He said he knows people who would like to serve on this Task Force and he hopes the Elections Commission will have input as well.
Brent Turner supplied an email from Brian Behlendorf, who he said is a good candidate for the proposed Task Force on open source code. Mr. Turner also suggested Alan Dechert and Jim March as possible members. He said that anyone interested in intellectual property rights must be excluded from the proposed Task Force. Additionally, he said that garbage cans should not be near areas where votes are being counted and reminded the Commission of an occurrence in Solano County where a ballot was allegedly found in the trash.
4. Director’s Report.
Ballot Distribution: Ballots will be arriving Friday, and staging of them will be in Brooks Hall instead of 240 Van Ness where the Department of Building Inspection has said is unsuitable. The DoE now has a lease for Pier 48, located near the ballpark, and the Brooks Hall and 240 Van Ness operations will be conducted there after February.
Budget and Personnel: The Sequoia Voting Systems contract is now completed. On Tuesday, the Port approved the MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) for the DoE to rent Pier 48 for three years an option for one more year. There’s a “not to exceed” the year 2013 time frame option on this contract. At the new pier location there will be a build-out for a secure, fenced, alarmed (for police and fire) site for staging and storing of ballots. The Director thanked the President and members of the Board of Supervisors for their efforts to get the new location for the DoE.
Campaign Services: Guides for the June election are being prepared as well as the phone bank. The signature-in-lieu filing period begins next Friday for that election. There will be a judicial candidate workshop on January 24th. There is a new law that requires persons who circulate petitions to wear a badge identifying whether they are paid or unpaid circulators. This division is working on the format for dispensing these badges.
Outreach: Information on the new voting systems is being distributed to community groups. Additionally information for the monthly publication of the Lighthouse for the Blind, and advertisements in neighborhood papers including various language specific neighborhood publications is being dispersed.
Publications: The VIP will be at the post office starting December 28, 2007. The ballot for the February election will be one card.
Poll Locating/ADA: The division has a self-imposed deadline of this Friday to locate all polling sites (twenty more to locate by then). Letter have been sent to all current locations to make sure those responsible for the sites are signed up and ready to go for the next election. Logistics and procedures for the new voting equipment are being planned.
Pollworker Division: Training classes begin January 12th. The new voting machines are being examined to provide training for these classes. The division reports that it has 68 per cent of the workers needed and they are experiencing a retention rate of 78% of the November 2007 workers.
Voter Services: Signatures must be checked on two state petitions which have recently come into the division. Four thousand overseas ballots must be mailed. The file for the mailing of the absentee ballots (135,000) has been sent to the new voting machine vendor. The data base of registered voters is being updated.
The Director reported that there have been daily meetings with Sequoia Voting Systems to be familiar with the new system and what is required to get the system implemented. The old ES&S equipment has been emptied from the computer room, and the server and desktops have been packaged and moved to Brooks Hall. The new equipment will be arriving next week. Installing this equipment, getting it on line and getting the data base installed will be the first step for getting the equipment ready for our next election.
One requirement from the SoS for the February election is that all the soft and firmware must be “re-burned” (re-installed) into the voting system with the files from the SoS’s office to ensure that nothing has been compromised. All optical scan machines will arrive in January but the touch screens we will be using will be borrowed from Riverside County because there isn’t time to do all the acceptance screening necessary before the February election. The Riverside machines have already been acceptance tested.
The Director said that although voters will be voting with new equipment the ballot cards will be familiar because they are the same as they have been using for the past seven years.
Commissioner Matthews asked if it was true that the mailing deadlines for items like the VIP are the dates that the Registrar must deliver the materials to the post office, NOT by which dates the voter must receive the materials. Director Arntz responded that this is correct. He said the Department cannot control when the voter receives the mailed voting materials.
President Meek referred to the concern of one public comment speaker regarding the SoS’s own deadlines not being met and asked the Director if the late arriving information will effect the DoE’s preparation for this February’s election. Director Arntz said that there was no problem this time but late submissions from the SoS could effect a future election.
President Meek asked the Director if there was anything the Commission could do to help secure Pier 48 for the Department in the future. Director Arntz replied that there was nothing more that can be done currently because the area is considered a development zone.
Commissioner Gleason said that he was concerned about the inspectors picking up the ballots at Pier 48 instead of City Hall because of the transportation problems the pier may present. Director Arntz said that the distribution of the ballots to the inspectors would continue at the old 240 Van Ness (which doesn’t have a sprinkler system) location because the ballots would only be there for a short time minimizing and the possibility of a devastating fire.
The Director added that a tent could be raised at Pier 48 for Pollworker Training, and the canvassing could also be held at that site, and ideally the cards could be stored there rather than having to be shipped to Alameda.
Update on the certification of the November 7, 2007 Municipal Election:
The election was certified on December 11, three days later than the 28 day allowed under the code. The reason was that there was a discrepancy between the hand count of some of the measures when compared to the machine count. The difference exceeded the threshold limits that the SoS set when she conditionally certified our voting system. The discrepancies were mostly seen in the absentee ballots where voters used various writing instruments.
The Department had 80 people working 18 hours a day for three days, then the staff worked 12 hours days, and as the 28 day deadline neared and we shared our approach for the tally with the SoS, we were told that we were looking at the information incorrectly and must expand our hand count. The DoE went to the Superior Court and requested an extension of an extra seven days which was granted, but we only needed to use three of the seven days.
Commissioner Gleason asked if the absentee ballots had previously been counted in the 1 per cent tally. Director Arntz replied that they had not, but the law has been changed. Commissioner Gleason said that he couldn’t understand why the absentees, which are about 50% of all the ballots cast, have not been part of the 1 per cent tally. Director Arntz said that he believes this is why the law was changed, to reflect the increase in voters voting absentee.
Commissioner Townsend said that he had been in favor of the SoS’s recent requirements because of the problems with ES&S and other companies and that the conditions, although a hardship on the DoE, made sense. Without those requirements, the extent of the failure of the machines would not have been known.
Commissioner Matthews congratulated the Department on being able to handle the SoS’s conditions. He said that he had made numerous visits to DoE locations during the process and was impressed by how well everyone worked.
Update on including use of Eagle data for post-canvas audit of equipment:
Mr. Arntz said that this hasn’t been a priority and is not completed but he has formatted how the data will be recorded. The person who would be doing this is also the project manager for the new system. The audit, hopefully, will be completed next week. The SoS is also interested in seeing the results.
Presentation of the Election Plan for the February 5, 2008, Primary Election:
The draft is expected to be completed by the first week of January. He explained that even after that week, some items in the plan will be changed.
Public Comment. David Pilpel said that he had expected to hear something about the Budget preparations for 2008-09 in the Director’s Report. He said that he hoped it would be on the next agenda. President Meek said that it would be. Brent Turner said that the borrowing of machines for the next election was evidence that the City could have borrowed Sequoia machines instead of purchasing them. He said that this purchase of Sequoia Voting Systems equipment was not a time for celebration and he applauds the SoS for increasing the protocols for this system.
5. Commissioner Reports. Commissioner Townsend reported that his term as Commissioner is up this year and that he had a call from the Mayor’s office and was advised that if he wanted to be reappointed, this could happen. The Commissioner said that he is willing to be reappointed and that he was disappointed to find that a member of the Commission had lobbied the Mayor’s office for his non-appointment.
6. NEW BUSINESS
(a) Discussion and possible action to approve the minutes of the November 20, 2007 Elections Commission meeting. Commissioner Matthews MOVED and Commissioner Gleason SECONDED approval of the minutes.
Public Comment. Brent Turner requested the audio tapes of the November 20, 2007 meeting so that he could make notes of his comments in that meeting which can be added to these minutes. The Commission Secretary informed Mr. Turner that those tapes do not exist because the audio recording equipment failed during the meeting and these minutes were constructed from handwritten notes taken during the November 20th meeting by the Secretary.
The Roll Call Vote was UNANIMOUS.
(b) Discussion and possible action regarding a policy that the Department advises voters to use paper ballots and not the DRE that will be available at the precincts. This item was requested by Commissioner Matthews. The Commissioner asked the Director about the informational script pollworkers are provided regarding inviting voters to use the ADA equipment. Director Arntz said that the City had new equipment at the polling sites that was meant to be accessible for people with disabilities and the law requires that persons not be singled out due to their disability. The Director said that it was decided to provide the same information and opportunity to all voters and not single out a voter because it was perceived that that voter had a disability that required the new equipment.
Commissioner Matthews said that although he appreciates the intent, his concern was that the language being conveyed to voters at the sites is more open and more inviting than expected. The language does not explain that the machine is for people who might find using the paper ballot difficult (or language to that effect). There is no education to the voters about why the other machine exists. Commissioner Matthews said that most of the voters he saw using the AutoMark didn’t need to use it and later when they were informed that they didn’t have to use it, were frustrated because they hadn’t found it a good experience – since they could have completed their voting in less time by using paper.
Deputy City Attorney O’Leary reminded new members of the Commission and the audience that the reason there is this one touch screen machine at each voting site is because of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) which requires that there be one machine that disabled voters can use privately and independently and a voter does not have to disclose that he or she has a disability in order to use the DRE machine. Deputy City Attorney O’Leary said that the Commission could request that the Director make available the scripts that the pollworkers are given for review, but, she cautioned, that the Commission take care that it is complying with the accessibility and disability rights of voters.
Commissioner Matthew agreed. He said that when he spoke to voters after their experience using the AutoMarks, he found that the voter felt that they were not informed but were invited to use the machines. They would have made a different choice had they been better informed about what they were about to experience.
Commissioner Gleason said that he would like this issue fully discussed and that the issue is that the machine is a DRE, not the AutoMark. The difference being that it tabulates the vote in the machine. He said that the script that the DoE has made available is fair and “even-handed”, but that he doesn’t believe the voters or the pollworkers understand this. The Commissioner said that an accommodation is like the sign on MUNI that lets riders know that the front seats should be made available for seniors and persons with disabilities. Every MUNI rider is aware of this policy and he said that he sees no problem with this notification. As another example, the Commissioner said that City Hall has ramps from the street that anyone can access who needs the ramp or who does not. He said that the voting machines are different – these machines are not the same because one tabulates the vote - and it is important that voters know this. The Commissioner said that this needs to be fully discussed and that he hopes to have a policy in time for the February Primary Election.
Commissioner Townsend said that the Commission and Department should be careful in directing voters to what they “ought to do.” He said that he would not use the DRE because it tabulates the vote, but if a voter knows about the tabulation and wants to use it, he or she should be able to do so.
Deputy City Attorney O’Leary stated that the Commission has the role of hearing and inquiry. If the Commission wants the Director to provide the script that is given to the pollworkers, this request can be made. She said the Commission must always be clear about what it wants from the Director. The Commission has the right to appoint someone to look into this issue and more fully evaluate this issue, and the person would have to work through the Director. The Commission can set policy, but it can not get into the day-to-day operations of the Department, however, it can encourage the Department to do something.
Commissioner Gleason said he would look into this issue but was concerned about the timeline needed before the February Election. It is possible that the San Francisco Elections Commission may not do anything about this issue and instead it should be handled by the SoS.
Commissioner Matthews MOVED and Commissioner MEEK SECONDED that Commissioner Gleason will meet with Director Arntz and inquire and investigate the instructions that voters are given at polling sites regarding the use of disabled access equipment versus the use of the paper ballots.
Public Comment. Alec Bash said that he supports this action and that he had reports that there were long lines of voters waiting to use the DRE machines on election day. He said that the track record of these machines is worse than the optical scan equipment and provides for a more difficult recount. He suggested telling voters that one type of equipment will provide a paper ballot record of your vote while the other will not. Bret Turner said that sometimes the DRE is a red herring because the focus should really be on the central tabulator. However, he said that the paper ballot is the preference of the City. He suggested a placard at polling sites near the DRE machines of the SoS’s statement that the machines have been proven vulnerable.
The Roll Call Vote was UNANIMOUS.
(c) Discussion and possible action on the subject of Commissioner access to election procedures and improvement of communication between the Department and the Commission. President Meek reminded members that this topic was suggested by Commissioners Shah and Matthews. She explained that there have been access problems in the past, and recalled that the Commission had full access except for the Computer Room during elections. This year the Commissioners reported that they did not have the same access as years previously for oversight purposes. In addition, Commissioners feel that they are not updated regarding the workings in the Department.
Deputy City Attorney O’Leary stated that the motion passed by the Commission in the past was that the Commission would request from the Director the passes they would use. This is important because the City Attorney has consistently provided this information to other Commissions regarding their roles and responsibilities under the Charter. The Commission is charged with setting the policies of the Department and the Department Head is responsible for the day-to-day management and administration of the Department. The Charter is clear that individual members of the Commission can not act on their own. However, the body can appoint someone to make an inquiry. The Commission can use its power of hearing inquiry to learn more by calling the Department Head or any member of the Department to learn more about issues. But the Department Head has the ability to make decisions about access to the Department.
Commissioner Matthews said that looking at Charter Section 103.5 the Commission was created to oversee the Department, and that it shall be responsible for the proper administration of the general practices of the Department and that these duties shall include, but not be limited to, approving plans as well as assessing how well the plan carried out a free, fair and functional election. The Commissioner said that it appears that it is implied that there be certain privileges of access and being able to observe activities in order to evaluate and carry out the Commission’s Charter created responsibilities.
Deputy City Attorney O’Leary said she wanted to clarify that Charter Section 103.5 should be read in tandem with Section 4.102 which sets the general powers and duties of all City Commissions. This section explains how oversight and analysis are conducted. The Deputy City Attorney said the sections makes it clear that Commissioners do not possess the power to conduct individual oversight. However, if the Commission wants an individual Commissioner to observe certain activities, the Commission must have a majority vote to allow that Commissioner to do so, and that Commissioner must work with the Department head to make those observations. Section 4.102 states that the Commission can hold hearings and take testimony regarding concerns, but it also makes it clear that the Commission is restricted in terms of administrative affairs. For the record, the Section reads: Each board or commission, relative to the affairs of its own department, shall deal with administrative matters solely through the Department Head or his or her designees, and any dictation, suggestion or interference herein prohibited on the part of any member of the board or commission shall constitute official misconduct provided however that nothing herein contained shall restrict the board or commission’s power of hearing or inquiry as provided under the Charter.
Commissioner Townsend said that with the before stated section, the Commission can put this issue to bed. He said that it is important for the Commission to stay out of the way of the Department and let the staff do their jobs.
Commissioner Gleason said that the issue is oversight of the election. Other counties in the state do not have citizen bodies like this Commission to oversee their elections. One example, Commissioner Gleason gave, is that he wasn’t (and the other Commissioners weren’t) aware that the absentee ballots were not counted in the canvass! He said that he didn’t want to hold a hearing and inquiry, he wants to see the canvass, and if not, he wants to hear from someone who has seen the procedure. In the last few years when the numbers of permanent absentee voters have grown to half of all voters in this county, these votes were not counted in the canvass. This is the kind of example where citizen oversight is important. The Commissioner said that he doesn’t see any danger in the Director allowing seven citizen-ambassadors (the Commission), controlled by the Director, to come in and see what goes on during an election and report it back – this a plus for the public.
President Meek said that the Commission should be more specific in what it wants to observe, and needs to approve who are the Commission’s representatives for these observations.
Commissioner Matthews said one issue which concerns him is the secrecy of the voted ballot. The envelope that contains the voted ballot has the voter’s signature on the outside. The policy that the DoE instituted in 2003 requires workers who extract the voted absentee ballots from these envelopes with the voter’s information on the outside, turn the side of the envelope with the information face-down, so that when they pull out the ballots, the information about the voters is not visible. The Commissioner said that this secrecy of ballot is important to him. This extraction procedure happens in a office, down a hallway, that was off limits to him during the last election. He had to stand behind a rope at the end of the hall, and the activity inside the room was not visible. In the past, he was able to see the procedure of the voter’s information being kept secret a large majority of the time, but occasionally there were batches when this was not the case. Commissioner Matthews said that this was just one example of an activity he wants to observe during an election.
Commissioner Phair asked the Director if it is possible for Commissioners to be observers because it is through observation that questions arise. Deputy City Attorney O’Leary replied that the Director does allow open access to the elections process, and Commissioners receive badges that allow them to observe most of what happens on election day. If the Commission feels that the areas where they can make observations needs to be expanded, then it can ask the Director to explain the badge policy.
Director Arntz said that the issue is not to bar people from observing the DoE, the issue is that everyone, who doesn’t work for the Department, have an escort when they are observing an area of the Department. The Commission should have unfettered access throughout the DoE to observe the operations at anytime with an escort. Depending upon how busy everyone is, an escort may take a few moments to arrive, especially on election day.
Commissioner Matthews agreed that the presence of an escort would not be a problem, however he wanted to be certain that with an escort he would be able to observe areas, like the extraction room. Director Arntz replied that he hasn’t restricted observations with escorts, but has recently added restrictions to the process, like needing escorts, which may have given the impression that certain observation areas were restricted. The director said that he was certain that things can be worked out to allow the Commissioners to see any operation they request at anytime, as long as it is within the protocols for observations.
Commissioner Matthews said he didn’t mean to imply that the Director restricted him from seeing inside the extraction room, but that the person assigned to escort him specifically said that the Commissioner was to stand behind the velvet ropes. The Commissioner asked the escort if he could go and look inside the room because he couldn’t see it from behind the ropes and was advised by the person that he couldn’t.
Commissioner Gleason said that the observations of the Commission were for the protection of the voter.
Commissioner Phair said that he agreed and, as a new Commissioner, he wants to work with the Director to get a better idea of how the DoE operates and if there are issues with which the Commission can assist the Department.
Commissioner Gleason MOVED to have on the next agenda areas of inquiry for oversight and areas of interest for the upcoming election.
Commissioner Matthews asked the Deputy City Attorney if specific areas of interest for observations by the Commission could be placed in the Commission’s Bylaws. Deputy City Attorney replied that this can be done and that the Commission should decide, before each election, which Commissioner it wants to assign to the specific area(s).
President Meek MOVED this item to the BOPEC Committee (Budget and Oversight of Public Elections Committee) for its Wednesday, January 2, 2008, 5:00 pm meeting. The Committee is to establish a list of items for observation at each election which will be assigned to a member of the Commission, and the bylaws amendment for these observations.
Commissioner Phair suggested that the list of areas for observations may change for each election.
Deputy City Attorney O’Leary suggested that the Commission look at the election plan and determine areas for observation.
Public Comment. Brett Turner said that during the last election he was escorted to view the extraction room in the last election and that he has observed many elections in other counties. He said that he was responsible for closing the San Mateo County audit because he observed table counts that were not happening in the order it should have been. David Pilpel said that at the July 5, 2003, Elections Commission Retreat, there was a power point presentation by Deputy City Attorney Julie Moll that may be helpful to explain the roles and responsibilities of the Commission and covered this topic. He said that the Charter language for the Elections Commission is different from other Charter boards and commissions. There are ways to exercise the powers of inquiry, and that the three main functions of the Commission are to appoint the Director, adopt and evaluate election plans, and set general policies for the Department. Alec Bash applauded the Commission’s efforts to oversee elections and said he looks forward to seeing what approach comes from the BOPEC meeting in January. He thanked the Commission for taking seriously its responsibilities.
(d) Discussion and possible action to propose a policy to the Director about revisiting the SoS’s conditions for the February and June 2008 elections, taking into consideration the effectiveness of those conditions in the November 2007 election. The President stated that since the Sequoia contract has been approved and the SOS hasn’t placed any conditions for the new system at the present time, this item was TABLED.
Further discussion on this item included Commissioner Gleason asking that there be discussion regarding the SOS’s condition that if one person uses the DRE at a polling place, then the pollworkers have to find five (5) additional voters to use the DRE at that site. The purpose of this SOS condition is to ensure the anonymity of the voters. Deputy City Attorney Ann O’Leary said that she will send this information (certification requirement for Sequoia) to the Commissioners via email.
Commissioner Matthews asked if a representative of the SOS could be invited to the meeting to explain this unusual requirement.
Commissioner Townsend asked if the Commission would send a letter to the SOS to thank her for the conditions she imposed on the City’s November 2007 election because, in hindsight, those conditions now make sense. In connection to the above condition, the Commissioner said he would be inclined to accept those conditions because she has been shown to have a good track record.
Public Comment. David Pilpel said that the Commission was taking the correct approach regarding the conditions on the Sequoia conditions, and agrees, with Commissioner Townsend, that the conditions the SOS imposed for last November served the City well. Brent Turner said that Walt Saltman, has said that the certification process is broken and can’t be repaired due to secret software.
(e) Discussion and possible action to amend Article V, Section 2-E of the by-laws from “The President shall present a draft of the annual report to the full Commission in July of each year and the annual report shall be approved by the full Commission no later than August 31 of each year.” to “The President shall present a draft of the annual report to the full Commission in December of each year and the annual report shall be approved by the full Commission no later than January 31st of the following year.”
This item was CARRIED OVER to allow a 15 day posting and to change wording of “December” to read “November” and for “January” to read “December 31st of that year” in the proposed text of this amendment. Deputy City Attorney O’Leary will advise the Commission whether there is a new requirement that annual reports cover the calendar year at the Commission’s next meeting.
(f) Discussion and possible action to amend Article VI, Section 3 of the by-laws from “The Commission shall conduct performance reviews for the Director of Elections and the Executive Secretary during each fiscal year.” to “The Commission shall conduct performance reviews for the Director of Elections and the Executive Secretary during each fiscal year beginning the fiscal year for 2009.”
This item was CARRIED OVER to allow a 15 day posting and to change wording of “fiscal year for 2009” to read “2008 – 2009.” in the proposed text of this amendment.
Public Comment. David Pilpel urged the Commission to do the reviews in the fiscal year 2008 with goals for the Secretary and Director as well as an evaluation process instead to prolonging it until 2009. Deputy City Attorney O’Leary said that the Commission must follow the Civil Service Rules, especially for the Executive Secretary, and that she would look into the procedure and report back to the Commission.
(g) Presentation and discussion of the President’s Report for 2007.
President Meek apologized for presenting only the draft of the first half of the Annual Report. She asked the members to let her know of any additional input in the Report and promised to have a final draft to the Commission by the January 16, 2008 meeting.
Deputy City Attorney O’Leary said that she has observed a few factual historical errors which she will correct and forward to the President.
Public Comment. David Pilpel reminded the Commission that the title should read “Annual Report” and not “President’s Report”. Additionally, Mr. Pilpel suggested adding to the report a section regarding public participation in the Commission proceedings, and a new section on challenges the Commission and the Department have ahead. Commissioner Yu suggested a brief comparison of the budget two years ago and last year’s budget, showing changes for historical purposes. She said this might help with future budget advocacy with the Mayor. Mr. Pilpel suggested that for historical purposes a narrative of the successes and challenges would be good, and reminded the Commission that budget information is available elsewhere. He said that the President and Commission’s take on what has transpired during the year is more important because the Annual Report is the only place, historically, that information will exist.
10. Discussion regarding items for future agendas.
A representative of the SOS to be invited to next meeting in January, letter to be drafted by Commissioner Matthews about rationale of the conditions on the Sequoia Systems Software certification for getting five voters to use the DRE equipment at each polling site.
Meeting ADJOURNED at 8:41 pm.