Elections Commission
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002
City and County of San Francisco
Elections Commission
Approved:August 18, 2004
Minutes of the Meeting held
August 4, 2004
1. CALL TO ORDER. President Townsend called the meeting to order at 7:12 pm.
2. ROLL CALL. PRESENT: Commissioners Trasviña, Townsend, Gleason and Mendelson. ABSENT: Commissioners Safire.
3. FLAG SALUTE. The flag salute was led by President Townsend.
4. Public Comment: Francisco Da Costa said that he was the Director of Environmental Justice Advocacy, and that he had left seven telephone messages for the Department of Elections and none of them were answered. Mr. Da Costa said he was attempting to get information about the laws governing recalls. Willie Ratcliff, publisher of the San Francisco Bayview Newspaper, said he was a general contractor and developer. Mr. Ratcliff said that he didn’t understand why the Department did not use random sampling to count the petition signatures for the recall petition. He said that it appears that the petitions are “at the bottom of the pile” in priority for the Department. Maurice Campbell said that he had read the Civil Grand Jury’s 2002-2003 Report with its recommendations regarding the Department of Elections operations. Mr. Campbell said that one of the persons responsible for getting the recall petitions to the DoE in a timely fashion was given the wrong information by the Department. He asked the Commission to include the recall election in the November 2004 election because it would save the City money and that by having one election citizens wouldn’t be intimidated when they would leave their homes to vote in a special recall election on another date. Mary Bull said that she was an activist and organizer, and that District 10 deserves its recall. She said there was “room for interpretation in the law.”
President Townsend announced that he had received a letter of resignation from Commissioner Robert Kenealey. The President said that the Commission will greatly miss Commissioner Kenealey’s input and counsel.
Commissioner Trasviña said that since he was the most junior member of the Commission, he wanted to ask how members of the community could bring issues to Commission meetings that are important to them. He asked what were the parameters for answering public questions, could the Commissioners ask the questions of the Director, and is there an opportunity for the Commission to discuss those issues.
President Townsend answered that he felt some of the items mentioned in public comment would be covered in the Director’s Report, and that this would be when the Commissioners could ask the Director specific questions. Mr. Townsend added that the Commissioners can respond but it has been the practice to not do so to avoid back and forth dialogue that can allow a meeting to get out of hand. Julia Moll, Deputy City Attorney, added that if Commissioners want to calendar the recall item for discussion and possible action, that they make that request and it can be added to a future agenda.
President Townsend stated that there was a request made to him by a member of the public to add this item but that it came too late to be added to the agenda for tonight’s meeting. He reminded the audience that the Sunshine Ordinance of the Administrative Code requires that agendas be posted 72 hours prior to the meeting.
5. DIRECTOR’S REPORT.
November 2, 2004 Election – The Director reported the DoE continues to have twice weekly presentations regarding Ranked Choice Voting (RCV). The presentations on Wednesdays are in a rotation schedule of the following languages: Cantonese, Mandarin and Spanish. On Fridays the presentations are in English. Over 400 community organizations have been contacted with offers to provide RCV presentations to their members. So far, 30 general outreach presentations which cover RCV and other voting questions and concerns have be scheduled.
Translations of brochures into Russian and Tagalog have begun and are expected to be available the week of August 13, 2004.
The Ranked Choice voting website will be interactive and allow voters to mark a ballot that will be available in English, Chinese and Spanish.
On August 13, 2004, the DoE will host a workshop on RCV for the Board of Supervisors’ Legislative Aides. All of the 17 neighborhood newspapers are beginning to run ads about RCV. Ads on the MUNI buses will begin in September and October and will be in English, Chinese and Spanish.
Voter Services Division – The division received the District 10 recall petitions that were submitted by the proponents. These petitions have been reviewed and labeled and a random sampling program to determine which signatures will be checked has been run. The division has received and processed 1600 of the address confirmation cards returned by the voters within the last two weeks. The division is preparing information for overseas voters that must be mailed 75 days before an election. There are 500 to 700 registration cards to be processed because they were turned in when the signatures in lieu petitions were received. These are expected to be completed by Friday.
Campaign Services – This division has been deluged with the campaign forms required by the Fair Political Practices Act (FPPCs), which all donors, organizations and candidates who make or receive campaign donations must file. San Francisco is one of the three depositories in the state. The other depositories are Sacramento and Los Angeles. The Director reported that the handling and filing of these forms is a huge burden on the Department because seven or more staff members are required to index and file the FPPCs in a timely manner so that they are available to the public. This activity is simultaneous to the submissions for ordinances by the Mayor or the Board and Friday is the end of the nomination period for candidates for supervisor for this November.
Poll Locating – This division had a very successful demonstration of voting technology last Monday. Four of the five invited vendors attended and provided equipment and demonstrations. The disabled community requested this demonstration. The vendors were surprised when over one hundred citizens attended. Far fewer people usually attend these demonstrations.
Previous polling place owners have been contacted to determine their site’s availability for this fall. Poll locators come on board to begin their work next week.
Ballot Distribution – This division is developing procedures for properly and effectively accommodating ballots due to the limited storage space at 240 Van Ness. The near final draft is in review for the RCV hand counting plan. It is expected to take one week per district to complete a hand count.
Technology Division –The division is setting up computers for the pre-election staffing increase. Among the increased staff are logic and accuracy workers, poll workers recruiters and staffing for the front desk. Also they are preparing the data base for the November election.
Budget / Personnel Update – A Superior Court Judge placed an injunction on the City applying certain requirements under the contracting laws we use in the City which relate to minority and women owned businesses. This stopped all purchasing in the City. It is critical for the DoE to continue its contracting in order to be ready for the November election. The City Attorney’s Office and the Office of Contract Administration were helpful in finding a legal basis to allow us to continue our DoE purchasing.
This division is putting together a budget for the Help America Vote Act funding to help train poll workers for this fall. The maximum grant is $300,000.
Currently it appears there will be 41 ballot types for this fall. The division is preparing the ballot order made more complicated because of RCV and the possibility of more spoiled ballots. The vehicle order is being prepared. The DoE uses between 150 – 200 vehicles including rentals and City loaner vehicles for an election. Orders for telephones are being analyzed because it is expected that the Department will be getting many more questions from the public as the election draws closer.
Regarding personnel, the Doe is preparing its paperwork to bring back increasing numbers of former workers.
Ballot Simplification Committee (BSC) – This group began working last Monday and approves the short explanation of the ballot measures that are in the Voters’ Guide (VIP). The instructions on RCV were submitted to this committee and they have provided very clear instructions that the DoE will be using in the VIP for this election.
In conclusion, Director Arntz reported that there are 14 state measures, 15 local measures, 2 local bonds and 1 BART Bond on the ballot. He said it looks like we will have the largest ballot in the country this fall.
Commissioner Mendelson asked the Director why the Department doesn’t get money from the State to pay for the workers the Department needs to do the Fair Political Practices Forms (FPPCs). The Director explained that the State assigned the City to do this. The DoE has complained but not made a formal request to be reimbursed. The legislature passed the law that assigned this responsibility to San Francisco and two other California Counties.
Commissioner Trasviña said that he would like the Commission to pursue a formal request to get money from the state for the FPPCs. He suggested that the City’s legislative delegation be contacted should legislation be necessary.
Commissioner Trasviña asked the Director if it will take one week per district to complete a hand count vote. Director Arntz replied that since this has never been done before, it is only an estimate of how long the process may take. Because this will be the first time, there will be a lot of attention given to the process and it may even take longer.
Commissioner Trasviña asked if the tallying for the districts that require a second and third round vote count will be conducted for each district simultaneously. Mr. Arntz answered that if there is a recount for more than one district, there will need to be a selection process to decide which district to do first because it will potentially take up to 70 people to do each count and it would be unmanageable to do this work with 140 people working at the same time (on two districts at once). The Commissioner clarified that this would be for a “recount”, not the count itself. Mr. Arntz answered affirmatively.
Commissioner Trasviña asked how long would it take to do the count itself. Mr. Arntz asked if the Commissioner meant how long it would take with the voting equipment or using a hand count.
Commissioner Trasviña asked how long the count would take using the equipment. Mr. Arntz said that the Department would be using the optical scan equipment and will add the absentee ballots (received up to Election Day) count to the first place vote count from the polls and this total will be available on Election Night. The Director reminded everyone that this will be the same as it has been in previous elections. Commissioner Trasviña asked how long will it take if the count has to go to the second and third place candidates. Mr. Arntz answered that this would take at least two weeks to get to the point where if there is no 50% plus-one-vote-gathering candidate, to process the absentees, provisionals and to go through the canvass to capture all the voter cards. Then the DoE would make sure that we processed all the cards and have all the first choice votes and then we would know for sure if we would need to read the second or third choice votes.
Commissioner Trasviña asked whether the process the Director described would take a week was counting first, second and third choice votes to determine a winner or conducting a recount of that process. Mr. Arntz said it was the latter of Commissioner Trasviña’s scenarios.
Commissioner Mendelson asked the Director who pays for the recount. Director Arntz answered that the person who challenges the results is the person who pays for the recount. The Commissioner asked how much will this cost. Mr. Arntz anwered that it would cost $10,000 to $15,000, up front, per day of the recount.
Commissioner Trasviña asked if a person can challenge that he or she is not the bottom candidate and should not have been eliminated. Mr. Arntz replied that the candidate could go to the courts and ask that the process be stopped. He said that until the statement of vote is issued, the count proceeds.
Joe Taggard, of Elections Systems and Software, was asked to add his comments. Mr. Taggart stated that not only do all the ballots need to be counted that are cast, but sometimes it may be 15 to 21 days before all absentees and provisionals surrendered are tabulated. Not only are ballots counted, but the equipment captures ballot records. These records are captured in order to relate a second and third choice to a voter’s first choice, should that voter’s first choice not be the winning candidate. If there is a 50% plus-one-vote-gathering candidate in the certified results, no algorithm is applied.
In any instance where that situation does not exist, Mr. Taggart continued, no candidate has the 50% plus one vote, the algorithm is applied. This algorithm is applied in “lightening like fashion” and the passes are made against an aggregate database. It happens all at once in five to ten minutes. At that point a winner emerges through one, two, three or more passes. There is no stopping in between the passes. This is the process in accordance with the City’s Charter requirements. At that point, the results are then certified. A challege can then be called and it called against the total result not against the end pass results. Those end pass results will be indicated if a recount is called for in the hand count.
Commissioner Mendelson asked Mr. Taggart what he means by Algorithm. Mr. Taggart replied that the Algorithm itself is the ability of the computer to look at the vote totals, eliminate the lowest ranked candidate and redistribute that candidate’s second choices based on the ballot records that were captured at the time that the ballot was tabulated.
Commissioner Mendelson asked the Director if there is a date certain when election results must be certified. Mr. Arntz anwered that the results must be certified within 28 days after the election.
President Townsend asked the Director to explain his previous comments about random sampling. Mr. Arntz reported that the DoE received 5000 signatures on the petitions requesting the recall in District 10. The Department received those petitions on July 19th. July 20, 2004, was the deadline, according to the Charter, for the DoE to process and verify the signatures as being sufficient to hold a recall election on the same day as the November general election. This was impossible to accomplish in one day. The Elections Code gives the Department 30 days to complete the process. The Doe told the recall proponents if the petitions were submitted to the Department by July 2, 2004, even though it was less than 30 days to July 20th, the Department would assure the proponents that it would do all it could to review and verify the petitions in time for it to be placed on the November general election were it to qualify. However, the petitions were not received until July 19, 2004.
The next step is to number each signature on all the petitions. The number of signatures collected are entered into the elections database. The computer software randomly picks numbers and the corresponding numbers on the petitions are checked by looking into the registration database to see if those voters are registered and if the signatures match.
President Townsend asked the Deputy City Attorney if she had anything further to add. Ms. Moll said that her office had orally advised the DoE regarding the Charter, the deadlines and the fact that the Charter guarantees not only to the DoE but to the recall proponents and the office holder (who is sought to be recalled), a minimum of 105 days to prepare for a recall AFTER a petition is certified. Ms. Moll said that she will put together formal written advice on this issue.
Commissioner Mendelson asked the Deputy City Attorney if there is anything that has occurred that is not consistent with the applicable law. Ms. Moll answered negatively.
President Townsend asked the Director what takes priority for verification of signatures, does it happen when they are turned in, or do petitions or signatures in lieu take priority. Mr. Arntz explained that it is a balancing act. He explained that when the recall petition was submitted, there were two more days remaining to complete checking the signatures in lieu petitions, and there were thousands of them to check. If the DoE has two days left on one deadline – and there’s a lot of work to do for that deadline, it is very difficult to stop everything and look at another petition. Mr. Arntz said that if the time period had been longer than one day, perhaps the DoE could have done something. But the Department was given no time in which to process the recall petitions.
Commissioner Trasviña said that he had been contacted by one of the recall proponents who told him that they were aware that their deadline was July 2, but were asking him if he thought they could get more time. The Commissioner advised them that it was in the hands of the Director. The proponents assured Commissioner Trasviña that they would have the petitions submitted right after the Fourth of July weekend. It appeared to him, he said, that the proponents were aware of the ramifications of the various deadlines. Commissioner Trasviña asked the Director if it was correct that if the original deadline had been met, it would have been a workload issue whether the DoE could have had all the work done by July 20th but as of the 20th it was a legal issue about when the election can be set. Director Arntz said that it was both a workload and a legal issue prior to July 20 and solely a legal issue thereafter.
Public Comment – Francisco Da Costa said that in interpreting laws, there are many gray areas and many different interpretations. He said the recall can still be put on the November ballot. Willie Ratcliff asked why the random sample wasn’t done right away. He said it didn’t make sense. Mary Bull said that she used to be a software expert and that the random sampling would only take one day not the week the Director said the Department needed. She said the City owes a lot to the people of District 10 and at least the City could let this recall be on the fall ballot.
6. New Business.
6(a) Discussion and possible action to approve the minutes for the Commission meeting of July 21, 2004. Commissioner Mendelson MOVED and Commissioner Trasviña SECONDED approval of the minutes. The motion CARRIED.
Commissioner Mendelson asked for a point of personal privilege, per the Brown Act, to issue a commendatory letter to Commissioner Robert Kenealey. He asked that the Commission create a certificate or other momento recognizing the outstanding service of Commissioner Robert Kenealey. Commissioner Gleason SECONDED. Public Comment – Charles Marsteller agreed that Commissioner Kenealey should be recognized for going through the difficult times of the Elections Commission’s earlier days. The motion CARRIED. President Townsend asked that the Budget and Policy Committee prepare the document for the full Commission’s review.
6(b) Discussion and possible action regarding whether the optical scan voting machines can and should be programmed to reject under-voted ballots for the November 2004 election. This programming could allow voters a second opportunity to examine their voted ballot.
Director Arntz reported that he had discussions with Elections Systems and Software about this issue. Mr. Artnz said that he had been advised that the Eagle voting equipment would need to be reprogrammed to provide this function and the machines would need to be recertified and this could not be done in time for November. Mr. Arntz suggested that the poll workers assigned to each voting machine be trained to remind voters to make sure that they have voted in all the contests they intended to vote.
Deputy City Attorney Julia Moll added that beginning in 2006, federal law will require that voting systems notify voters when they have over-voted, that is, cast more than the allowable votes. However, this will not apply to under-votes.
President Townsend asked if was possible that the Department would have enough time after the November election and before the next full election to program the machines to reject under-voted ballots and get certification. Mr. Arntz answered affirmatively.
President Townsend asked if this item could be continued to another meeting because he was certain there are more people interested in this item than those present at this meeting and he’d like to give them another chance for input.
Public Comment – Eric Allen said he had attended the meeting specifically for this item. He said that if a voter had intentionally only voted for one candidate and was questioned when his or her ballot was rejected whether this was the intention, that voter might feel intimidated to pick more candidates than he originally intended. Mr. Allen said that “just because you have technology to do stuff, doesn’t mean that it’s a good idea to use that technology.” He said that this starts to tell people what they ought to be doing.
7. Discussion regarding items for future agendas.
President Townsend said that he would like an update on the recall petitions.
Commissioner Trasviña asked whether there was any action the Commission was authorized to take regarding the recount matter. Ms. Moll answered that there was not. Commissioner Trasviña stated that tonight’s experience of having the matter came up as part of the Director’s Report provided an adequate opportunity for the Director, the Commissioners and the public to discuss it. He suggested that the Director’s Report could cover any updates in the future.
President Townsend withdrew his suggestion in favor of the Director giving the Commission and the public updates during his reports.
Public Comment – Francisco Da Costa said that senior citizens should be considered when the DoE does its outreach on RCV. He said it was an insult for the matter of the recall to be updated by the Director in his Report to the Commission at its meetings. Willie Ratcliff said that putting the recall updates in the Director’s report was taking away the responsibility of the Commission. Mary Bull said that President Townsend’s statement to Director Arntz that he “imagined that the signatures would be verified by the next Director’s Report to the Commission” was ambiguous. She asked if this was the President’s direction or was it a question. President Townsend replied that he asked the Director would the signatures be counted by the next Director’s Report.
President Townsend asked that a discussion of the authority of the Elections Commission in the matter of a recall election be calendared on the next agenda so that this information will be clear. He said the areas covered should include: setting a coming election and deciding how and who decides what goes on the ballot and what does not.
Commissioner Trasviña asked if the opinion regarding the recall that Deputy City Attorney Moll said she would prepare in writing for the Commission would be a public document. Ms. Moll said that she is working on a memo to the Commission and she doesn’t yet know if it will be a public document.
Public Comment – Mary Bull asked if the Commission was stating, at this time, that it is illegal for the recall to go on the November 2004 ballot. Director Arntz answered that the deadlines are in the Charter and that he has no discretion on the deadlines. Mr. Arntz added that the random sampling can not be completed in the two to five minutes originally suggested in public comment, but will take three to five days. He reminded the audience that the Director and the Commission have no discretion in this matter. If the signatures on the petitions are verified, there will be a recall election, however, it will not happen in November.
ADJOURNMENT at 8:36 pm.