Meeting Information

Archive Center >> Elections Commission >> Elections Commission >> 2002

back to Elections Commission home page

1. Call to Order and Roll Call

Commission President Tom Schulz called the meeting to order at 7:11 p.m.

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Thomas Schulz, President; Richard Shadoian, Vice-President; Robert Kenealey, Commissioner; Michael Mendelson, Commissioner; Alix Rosenthal, Commissioner; David Serrano-Sewell, Commissioner; Brenda Stowers, Commissioner

STAFF PRESENT: Tammy Haygood, Director of Elections; Jeremy Eckstein, Assistant to the Director

CITY ATTORNEY’S STAFF PRESENT: Julie Moll, Deputy City Attorney

MATERIALS DISTRIBUTED:

· Notice of Meeting and Agenda

· Addendum to the San Francisco Department of Elections Plan for the March 5, 2002 Consolidated Primary Election

· Process to be used for nomination and appointment of three members to the Redistricting Task Force from Commissioner Tom Schulz

· Letter dated February 20, 2002 from Commission President Tom Schulz addressed to Complaint Committee, Sunshine Ordinance Task Force

· Draft Meeting Minutes dated January 24, February 1, February 5, February 7 at 4:30 p.m., and February 7 at 6:30 p.m.

· Revised March 5, 2002 Working Election Calendar for the Gubernational Primary

· San Francisco Public Library Meeting Minutes

2. Public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda that are within the jurisdiction of the Elections Commission.

Note: The Commission will hear public comment on each item on the agenda before or during consideration of that item. At this time members of the public may address the Commission on items that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Elections Commission and that do not appear on the agenda.

Public Comments:

David Rogers voiced his concerns regarding unvoted ballot retrieval. He spoke of an incident where 600 voted ballots were not removed from the Eagle Machines the night of the election and how a poll worker walked off with 250 unvoted ballots. He was deeply troubled to hear that the Department of Elections did not think the two incidents were a problem. He stated that the passing of Proposition E would address the problem. He also suggested that the Department of Elections should have a card at the kiosk at the entrance because all departments and commissions have their contact and location information there.

Agenda Line Item Numbers Three to Eleven were skipped for the Secretary of State’s, Agenda Line Item Number Twelve.

12. Discussion and Possible action regarding communication with the Secretary of State on the issue of recanvassing the November 2000 Election. Discussion with a representative from the Secretary of State’s Office. (Discussion and Possible Action)

· Bill Jones distributed Letter dated February 20, 2002 from Bill Jones, California Secretary of State, re: Reforming the Elections Process in San Francisco addressed to Honorable Tom Ammiano, Chair, Board of Supervisors

Bill Jones, Secretary of State, expressed his appreciation that the Commission is doing its jobs. He commented that the Commissioners work short hours and have high paying salaries.

He voiced his intention to restore professionalism and integrity to the Department of Elections and hoped that voters would become comfortable to vote again in San Francisco elections.

In his two terms as Secretary of State, he stated that no other county in the State of California has had the repeated need of his attention on an on-going basis and that the plate is going back to the San Francisco local government.

He addressed the need for a full recanvass of the November 2000 Election. He stated that investigators from his office found discrepancies on voted precinct ballots. He expressed his concern that the full recanvass and review of the November 2000 Elections has not occurred yet. He added that one-third of the San Francisco voters are unhappy and uncomfortable with the Department of Elections.

He also expressed his dismay over the San Francisco Board of Supervisors’ decision to put off the recanvassing procedure. He added that the need to review the election in question is imperative and should be done in an aggressive time frame.

He also expressed his intention on assisting the department with their reform efforts. He added that he did not appear before the Commission to create problems and that he would not question its conduct.

He offered the following proposals for consideration before the Commission:

· Build Continuity and Stability in the Elections Department

· Development of a Plan for Reform, Stability, and Continuity

· Community Involvement

· Involve Other Election Officials

· Survey of Other Counties

· Staffing

· Information Technology

· Physical Location: Office Space and Warehouse

· Procedures and Resources

· Maintenance of the Voter File and Outreach to Voters

· Resolution of Outstanding Issues

(For complete details, please refer to the Secretary of State’s letter dated February 20, 2002)

Secretary of State Bill Jones suggested that the Commission review his outlined reform recommendations. He stated that the public needed to trust the department again and delays could only cause additional problems. He added that credibility should become the department’s primary goal.

Commission President Tom Schulz stated that the Elections Commission and the Secretary of State had 90% agreement on the recanvass order. He added that he admired the Secretary of State’s openness on issues relating to the Department of Elections. He also stated that the Secretary of State gave a detailed presentation and produced a good management outline. Commission President Tom Schulz added that the Commission had limited resources and that the cost benefit of recanvassing outweighs the budget limitation. He further stated that the November 2000 Election was done and that the Commission should focus their energy into consolidating and finding an office space for the Department of Elections. He asked the Secretary of State if the State of California would help pay for the recanvass order.

Secretary of State Bill Jones answered Commissioner Thomas Schulz inquiry. He stated that the Elections Commission cannot leave a page unturned and that the questions must be answered. He added that he issued the full recanvass deadline after the March 5, 2002 Election because he did not want to jeopardize the upcoming election.

Commission President Tom Schulz stated that the Commission would get actively involved in answering the questions posed by the Secretary of State regarding the November 2000 Election full recanvass.

Public Comments:

Peter Fries commented that the Sunshine Ordinance has a provision that a public speaker has a 250-words limitation. He stated that he heard the most unusual thing from the Secretary of State. He added that the Secretary of State’s dialogue should be incorporated to the meeting minutes by reference only.

David Rogers stated that 33% of voters distrust the San Francisco Department of Elections.

3. Approval of Past Minutes from meetings on 1.24.02, 2.1.02, 2.5.02, 2.7.02 (Budget and Policy Committee), 2.7.02. (Discussion and Possible Action)

Public Comments:

Peter Fries commented that he has a problem with the minutes. He also stated that meeting minutes drafts should be available to the public ten days after the meeting. He suggested pushing for approval of minutes.

The approval of past minutes from meetings on January 24, 2002, February 1, 2002, February 5, 2002, February 7, 2002, and February 7, 2002 was rescheduled on March 6, 2002 meeting.

Agenda items 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 were skipped for line item #9, report from the Budget and Policy Committee.

9. Report by the Budget and Policy Committee. (Discussion and Possible Action)

Commissioner Alix Rosenthal reported on the impact to the Department of Election if Proposition A (instant run-off voting) passed. She voiced her concerns on:

· Staff training

· Software problems with ES&S

· Related expenses of Proposition A

· Software approval from the Secretary of State, and

· How it would affect the voters of San Francisco

She stated that it would be a challenge to implement the software before 2003 because the Secretary of State has to certify the software needed for the instant run-off voting. She informed the Commissioners that the software had not been certified.

She suggested getting a waiver before 2003. She informed the Commission that Santa Clara County adopted the instant run-off voting but has not made any request to the Secretary of State for software certification.

She also reported to the Commission that the instant run-off voting process was improbable logistically. She stated that not implementing the instant run-off voting would not violate constitutional or federal laws but unsure of any state laws.

She also reported that Cambridge, MA is the only place that was using the instant run-off voting in the country. She reported that a manual count was in place until 1997, when optical scanners took its place.

Public Comments:

Christopher Bowman re-affirmed Commissioner Rosenthal’s reports that Instant Run-Off Voting was not being used anywhere else in the United States. He read Bradley Clark’s (Registrar of Voters Alameda County) letter distributed at the Budget and Policy Committee meeting. He requested that the letter be included in the minutes of the Budget and Policy Committee meeting and not to delay the approval of the Task Force on Redistricting budget and that authority be delegated on the subject.

4. Report by the Director of Elections on the March 5, 2002 Election. Discussion of the March 5^th, 2002 Election plan. (Discussion and Possible Action)

Director Haygood discussed the open problems associated with the March 5, 2002 Election. She reported to the Commissioners that the department has received 900,000.00 ballots with the remainder to be delivered on or before March 1, 2002.

She described the incremental steps necessary to ensure that the ballots could be used for the March 5, 2002 Primary Election.

· Director Haygood also opened the discussion of issues for the March 5, 2002 Election:

· Space Availability / Space Modifications

· Ballot Storage

· Shipping

· Receiving

The Commissioners discussed how they could assist the department in finding a space to conduct elections. The Commissioners gave Director Haygood full power to find space to relocate her department to properly conduct an election in the future.

Director Haygood also reported on Midnight Madness. She informed the Commissioners that Midnight Madness was an annual event sponsored by the Department of Elections where voters could register or re-register for the March 5, 2002 Consolidated Election. She reported the event was very successful because the department was able to register 460 voters.

5. Discussion of the roles that Commission members will play in observing the March 5, 2002 Election. (Discussion and Possible Action)

Director Haygood informed the Commissioners of the observation sites available for the March 5, 2002 Election.

· City Hall Cafeteria, which would serve as the Command Center on Elections Day. This is where the Department of Elections answers and fields precinct calls. She informed the Commissioners that the Command Center would not be open and not accessible to the public for observation.

· Cor-O-Van Warehouse, which would serve as the Logic and Accuracy Testing site for the Eagle Machines to ensure that the machines work properly on elections day.

· Pier 29, which would serve as the Processing Center. DOE personnel accompanied by Sheriff Deputies would transport Red Boxes and unvoted ballots from polling places to Pier 29.

· Corridor by Room 8, which would serve as the absentee ballot processing center.

· South Light Court, which would serve as the remake process center. She informed the Commissioners that the department has to re-make, (in teams of two), ballots that are: torn, ripped, mutilated, stray marks in the read path, dirty/damaged ballots, not correctly market ballots, sample ballots and paper (xeroxed) ballots prior to being processed through the Election System & Software (ES&S). She outlined the remake procedure to the Commissioners:

· 240 Van Ness, which was responsible for receiving, checking, and distributing, unvoted precinct ballots and unvoted generic ballots.

· Polling Precincts in San Francisco.

· Computer Room in Room 48, City Hall, which would serve as the uplink site after 8:00 p.m.

Commission President Tom Schulz requested that the Commissioners receive public observation badges. He also directed the Commissioners to refer all complaints to his attention or Director Haygood.

Public Comments:

Chris Bowman stated that remakes and absentee ballots processing should occur City Hall’s North Light Court and suggested that members of the press should be in the War Memorial Green Room across the street so that the Department of Elections could have more space. He also stated that the Voter Information Pamphlet (VIP) should have been mailed out forty days before the election and that the absentee voter ballots should have been mailed 29 days before the election to correspond with the 29 days early voting requirement. He asked what dates the voter information pamphlets went out and what percentage of the Decline-To-State voters requested had partisan ballots.

Director Haygood answered Chris Bowman’s inquiry of when the VIPs were mailed. She stated that there was a problem with the contracted printer’s ink jet address that prints the voter information pamphlets barcode and that the payment for the printing of the VIPs in the November 2001 Consolidated Municipal Election has not been made. She also stated that the sample ballot could be sent to voters 40 to 10 days prior to an election. She reported that the voter information pamphlet had been mailed out and that voters should receive their copy shortly. She also reported that the absentee voter ballot did not have a 29-day mandate and that it would be mailed the week of February 20, 2002. She added that a palate of ballots broke at the post office, which caused delays in voters receiving their voter information pamphlets.

Chris Bowman inquired again on the percentage of Decline-to-State Voters who requested partisan ballots.

Peter Fries informed the Commission that the Veteran’s Memorial Green Room was unavailable due to construction work. He stated that holding the election is a matter of city business and should not be moved elsewhere.

David Rogers inquired about voting materials retrieval and what procedures were currently in place.

A ten-minute break was observed at 8:45 p.m.

The meeting reconvened at 8:50 p.m.

Commission President Tom Schulz informed the Commission that they had to pick their own area to observe. He stated that he would also look into televising the meeting in closed circuit television. He also informed the Commissioners that a copy of their post-elections

observation would be sent to the Secretary of State. He reiterated to the Commissioners report back to him or to Ms. Haygood any problems found or observed on March 5, 2002.

Ms. Julie Moll, Deputy City Attorney, reminded the Commissioners that since they would act as observers and would be in the same place one time or another, a public notice should be posted. She stated that the Commissioners prepare a special notice and that an itinerary or an agenda was not necessary.

Commissioner Robert Kenealey inquired from Director Haygood on the status of the Elections Officers plan and training.

Ms. Haygood reported to the Commissioners that the Department of Elections planned to contact over the age of 50+ and that 200 Elections Officers volunteered to take the Elections Officers’ Training classes. She also reported to the Commissioners that the procedure to become an Elections Officers had changed. She stated that previously, an Elections Officer only had to take a test, and that the applicant had come back for the training. Director Haygood stated that the intake test has been eliminated altogether. She reported that anyone who wished to work as an Elections Officer was encouraged to fill out a regular application form or if they chose, could phone or fax in their interest. Once the application had been processed, the applicant would be scheduled for a class. The Elections Officer would take a test at the conclusion of the class.

Public Comments:

No Public Comments.

6. Report by the Director on the status of the Department of Elections request for a Supplemental Budget Appropriation. (Discussion and Possible Action)

Director Haygood reported that the Elections Commission Finance Committee had approved the Elections Task Force on Redistricting budget. She stated that the Board of Supervisors Finance Committee members would hear the Elections Task Force on Redistricting budget on February 27, 2002. She also reported to the Commissioners that the Elections Task Force on Redistricting budget was separated from the Department of Elections’ budget. She added that the Elections Task Force on Redistricting had planned to hold neighborhood/community meetings with meeting facilitators to get the public’s input on their redistricting efforts.

Public Comments:

Ms. Julie Moll stated that the Commission should adopt a conflict-of-interest code.

7. Discussion and possible action to adopt a conflict of interest code. (Discussion and Possible Action)

Motion 022002-1:

To adopt conflict of interest code as stated by Julie Moll, Deputy City Attorney.

(Mendelson-Serrano-Sewell) Moved, Seconded and Unanimously Passed.

Public Comments:

No Public Comments.

Ms. Julie Moll, Deputy City Attorney, discussed the conflict-of-interest code with the Commissioners.

8. Discussion on setting Commission Bylaws. (Discussion and Possible Action)

Commissioner Michael Mendelson proposed to generate Bylaws with Commissioner Rosenthal , and to present the Bylaws to the full Commission.

Motion 022002-2:

To create an Ad Hoc Committee for bylaws and stationary.

(Mendelson/Rosenthal) Moved, Seconded and Unanimously Passed.

Public Comments:

No Public Comments.

9. Report by the Commission President on the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force Complaint Committee hearing held on February 12, 2002 at 12:00 p.m. (Discussion and Possible Action)

· Commission President Thomas Schulz distributed a letter re: Request for Recusal by Chair of Sunshine Task Force and Response to Complaint Committee Meeting of February 12, 2002.

Public Comments:

No Public Comments.

10. Discussion on establishing a relationship with the Citizen’s Advisory Committee on Elections. (Discussion and Possible Action)

Joseph MacGuire introduced himself as the new addition to the Citizen’s Advisory Committee on Elections (CACE).

Commission President Tom Schulz asked the Commissioner about the working relations of the Elections Commission with the Citizens Advisory Committee on Elections. He

stated that the Commission has discretion as to the existence of the Citizen’s Advisory Committee on Elections.

Public Comments:

No Public Comments.

11. General Public Comment

Public Comments:

David Rogers requested that the Elections Commission have their scheduled meeting be more accessible to the public. He suggested that the process be observed with a time and date stamped video camera. He stated that the video camera was for security purpose as well as to "watch the watchers". He also suggested that the Service Corps of Retired Executives would be a good source of high quality volunteers for Election Day and Election Night.

Joseph McGuire stated that he was gratified with the work the Elections Commission was doing. He suggested that it would be interesting for the Commissioners to visit the San Mateo Department of Elections. He stated that San Mateo County’s Department of Elections facilities’ were a great example of transparent day-to day operations that the public can view. He urged the Commissioners to visit to San Mateo because it would be a wonderful experience during elections. He further stated that the San Mateo Department of Elections had a wide-open space and that the Commissioners should see how that particular county carries out their elections. He also stated that the San Francisco Department of Elections’ problems are facility based-and that the Commission should move forward to address the San Francisco Department of Elections’ warehouse, facilities, and office issues.

12. ADJOURNMENT

Motion to adjourn meeting at 10:00 p.m.

(Rosenthal/Mendelson) Moved, Seconded and Unanimously Approved.

Minutes Prepared By: Ana Marie Paraiso