Elections Commission
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 City and County of San Francisco
Elections Commission
Approved: September 01, 2004
Minutes of the Meeting held
August 18, 2004
- CALL TO ORDER. President Townsend called the meeting to order at 6:08 pm.
2. ROLL CALL. PRESENT: Commissioners Trasviña, Townsend, Gleason and Chung. ABSENT: Commissioners Safire and Mendelson.
President Arnold Townsend officially welcomed the newest member to the Commission, Sheila Chung, the Treasurer’s appointee and invited her to say a few words.
Commissioner Chung said that she is currently the Director of the Bay Area Immigrant Rights Coalition and is excited about bringing some of the voices of immigrants to the Elections Commission.
President Townsend said that he was pleased that a member of a previously unrepresented community was now on the Commission.
3. DIRECTOR’S REPORT.
November 2, 2004 Election – The Director reported that the DoE had a meeting the previous Thursday with New California Media, the ethnic media group organizing the print message for Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) outreach. The regular twice-weekly presentations continue in City Hall, Fridays in English and on Wednesdays the languages alternate between Spanish and Chinese. Six community outreach groups have begun their contracted work and four more community groups will begin once their contracts are finalized. Brochures on RCV are now available in Spanish, Russian, Chinese, English and Tagalog. A flash media website has been launched at the DoE website from which the public can actually test vote a RCV ballot. RCV advertisements will be in the neighborhood newspapers in October.
Voter Services Division – This division manages the data base where all voter records are kept. Overseas notices are being mailed out. The staff of this division dedicated over one full week to review the recall petition for Supervisor Sophie Maxwell. Currently the division is reviewing the proponent/opponent and paid arguments that have been submitted to confirm that the signers are registered San Francisco voters.
Poll Locating / ADA – This division is examining DoE files to ensure information is correct so that proper materials are sent to the correct polling places and that the information is being tracked properly. The division is also relocating polling places to assure that they are all ADA compliant. Currently, 75 percent of the sites completely meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). The division is preparing a grant proposal to obtain more money to help make more locations accessible under the HAVA. This grant is due August 26, 2004.
Ballot Distribution – This division has been cleaning out the basement of 240 Van Ness Avenue – the location where the City’s ballots are to be stored. The Department expects to have 1.5 to 2M ballot cards coming in for the November election. This translates into between 4 and 5 cards for each ballot, depending upon the district.
Technology Division –This division has placed the poll worker application on the Department’s website. Citizens can now sign up for employment on line. There is a text version of RCV, for persons with visual difficulties to hear instructions regarding RCV. The division is working on a satellite picture of all the polling places in the City which will allow citizens to type in their home addresses and be directed to a satellite picture of their polling place. Two new network servers have been installed to assist in the November RCV election. It is planned that the testing for logic and accuracy will happen the first week in September.
Budget / Personnel Update – Approximately fifteen new people have been added to the Department during the last week. Their paperwork is being processed and they are being scheduled for orientation. The Budget office is putting together a grant for poll worker training under the HAVA.
Poll Worker/Training Division – This division has begun sending letters to former poll workers to determine how many are interested in returning for the coming election. High School and College recruitment has begun. The poll worker manual on RCV is being finalized.
Campaign Services - This division is gathering the proponent/opponent and paid arguments in preparation for formatting in the Voters Information Pamphlet (VIP). At the end of August the ballots will have been formatted and on their way to the printer. It is expected that the City will have approximately 44 ballot types for November.
Proposed Recall for District 10 – Voter Services reviewed the petitions for the recall last week. The five-hundred-random-sample-count review indicated a failure of the recall. There was a high incidence of duplicate records in that sampling which prompted the review of all of the petitions. The Department found that the petition, again, failed. The proponents, the Supervisor and the Mayor have been informed.
Commissioner Trasviña asked if the community groups chosen for RCV outreach had received any funding to date. Director Arntz stated that some monies were dispersed at the beginning of contracts, and other monies will be paid as reimbursements. Commissioner Trasviña asked when will the contracting groups to begin their outreach services. Mr. Arntz said that the six groups who have been granted contracts have already begun. There are four additional groups who have not had their contracts signed yet, but some of these four have also begun outreach with material the DoE has provided. Commissioner Trasviña asked the Director about the progress in obtaining bi-lingual poll officials in Chinese and Spanish. Mr. Arntz said that in the past, the DoE has been very successful in recruiting Chinese bi-lingual poll workers, however, there has always been a challenge getting poll workers who speak Spanish. The Department is working very actively to recruit more Spanish speakers. Commissioner Trasviña suggested that the Director add a section to the poll worker interest letter, being sent to former poll workers, that asks if they know any Chinese or Spanish speaking people who may be interested in working the polls, to get in contact with the Department. Commissioner Trasviña asked the Director how many polling sites are ADA compliant and how many are not. Director Arntz answered that 75% are not and added that geographically, there are some sites that will never be compliant. He said for example, a sidewalk is too steep because it is in a neighborhood where there topography is hilly and steep.
Commissioner Chung asked how well attended the twice-weekly bi-lingual RCV training has been and how many training sessions have been conducted by the newly granted community groups. The Director said that he didn’t have numbers on the community groups but the DoE’s presentations in City Hall have had sporadic attendance. Sometimes there is a group that is interested and that group will send a large number of citizens to attend. He said he couldn’t give the Commission an average number.
4. NEW BUSINESS
- Discussion and possible action to approve the minutes for the Commission meeting of August 4, 2004. Commissioner John Trasviña MOVED and Commissioner Gerard Gleason SECONDED approval of the minutes. MOTION CARRIED.
- Discussion and possible action to approve the Election Plan for November 2, 2004 Election. Commissioner Gleason asked the Deputy City Attorney if he was correct that under the Charter amendment that established the Elections Commission, the Commission is to approve plans and procedures. He said that the mandate sounds generalized. The Commissioner said that the Elections Plan has parameters and timelines, and that in his experience, the big calamities have occurred because of procedural decisions or contingencies that come up. Mr. Gleason said that he was not sure that the Commission’s job was to approve every actual procedure that the DoE would operate under.
Deputy City Attorney Moll confirmed that Charter requires approval of an election plan, but the Charter is not specific about the content of the plan. Ms. Moll added that, soon after the Charter requirement was enacted, she had spoken to the drafters about what they intended to be included in these plans. They conceded that they did not have a clear idea about what would be included, or that so much of elections is regulated by State law and not subject to change by an elections department. They also recognized that there are decisions made on short notice, and such decisions do not lend themselves to prior approval by a commission. Ms. Moll added that because of the lack of specificity in the Charter, the Elections Commission developed a template for an Election Plan. The staff generally follows the template. The Commission can revisit and change the template at any time.
Commissioner Gleason said that he felt that the Elections Plan could be called The General Election Plan or The Time Line or something similar.
President Townsend said that the Elections Plan gives the Commission a general sense of what the Department is doing leading up to the election. He said that changing the name of the plan can be put on the agenda should any Commissioner wish to do so.
Commissioner Trasviña stated that if use of City workers during the election is contemplated by the Director of Elections, that use of workers should be part of the Elections Plan.
Commissioner Trasviña asked the Director if planned oversight by the Commission has been included in past Elections Plans. President Townsend explained that Commissioners have provided oversight in areas of their choice, during elections, but that that oversight has not been included in the Elections Plan.
Commissioner Trasviña said that although the Director gives reports at every Commission meeting of the progress of the DoE’s work in preparation for the upcoming election, that providing specific reports on the election should be part of the Elections Plan to the Commission.
Commissioner Gleason asked if there were to be some secondary reports to the Elections Plan, for example, what will happen to the RCV ballots at the polling places; that is, will the poll workers be separating them out so that the Department can have instant access to them if there needs to be a recount.. Would this be the kind of back up information given to the Commission?
Director Arntz replied that there is so much going on during an election and that it would be difficult to provide information if the Commission doesn’t purposely request specific information.
President Townsend suggested that the Commission calendar, again, the Elections Plan and that the Commissioners make suggestions for inclusion in that plan.
Commissioner Trasviña said that he would like to amend the Elections Plan to include an oversight provision that would provide for the Director to provide at each Commission meeting until the Election, updates of the plans and procedures. President Townsend replied that the Director already does this at each meeting and that if Commissioner Trasviña wants something more, the Commissioner should provide specific directions. Commissioner Trasviña said that he would like the plan to have a provision for oversight so that, in the case, for instance, of Commissioner Gleason wanting to know certain procedures. Mr. Trasviña said that he wants to avoid the Department or the Director saying, “Oh, I didn’t know you wanted to know that. I didn’t know that was important to you. And the Commissioners finding out something from the press or from members of the public and being asked ‘How is it you didn’t know that’. The Department, or the experts in this case, ought to be able to anticipate what are important issues.” Commissioner Trasviña clarified his request by saying, “For oversight, the Director shall report to the Commission at each meeting through the election period, on the plans and procedures for the election.” Commissioner Trasviña offered to accept the Elections Plan with this amendment.
Commissioner Chung MOVED that the Election Plan be approved with the amendment by Commissioner Trasviña. SECONDED by Commissioner Gleason.
PUBIC COMMENT: Jay Martin said he saw the value of the overview, but he would rather want to see the Commission reviewing the internal, procedural documents. An Unidentified Speaker asked if the Director’s Report could be opened up to allow public comment. President Townsend replied that those questions could be brought up at the end of the meetings when the public is asked to comment on any issue within the Elections Commission’s general jurisdiction. Another Unidentified Speaker said that he was in favor of the oversight because he had read the Civil Grand Jury’s Report. Gerry Bullock said there were many “irregularities” in the last election.
This MOTION CARRIED.
- Discussion and possible action to submit a request to the Board of Supervisors for a waiver allowing certain City employees to work on the November 2, 2004 election. Commissioner Gleason asked Deputy City Attorney Moll if the role of the Sheriff was only for security and to escort the ballots. Ms. Moll explained that the role included transport of devices used to record votes -- not just ballots -- and approval of other aspects of security. She said she would provide more information about this issue before the next meeting.
Commissioner Gleason said that he would like to keep the Sheriffs’ role to exactly what was established in the Charter Amendment. He said he was very sensitive to the fact that there were people with side-arms involved in the election process. He said it was a visual perception problem.
Ms. Moll reminded the Commissioner that the waiver being discussed did not pertain to that question.
Commissioner Gleason asked if a waiver would be required to have the Sheriff take on any function not specified in the Charter.
Ms. Moll said that the Charter charges the Sheriffs with security. No waiver would be required for work relating to elections security.
Commissioner Gleason said that he was bringing this matter up because two years ago the Sheriffs were filling in, after 5:00 pm on election day, as Field Election Deputies, and that he felt this was not intended to be their role.
The Director gave an overview of what the waiver does include. Mr. Arntz reported that the DoE needs help during elections with the computer systems because there is not enough staff within the Department. In addition, City employees work as poll workers and Field Election Deputies (FEDs) – whole provide support throughout the precincts, and sometimes at the front desk and the phone desk. The Charter, he said, prevents City workers from being poll workers, therefore a waiver from the Board of Supervisors must be sought to use workers in these positions.
Commissioner Trasviña asked if the Director had a plan regarding how many City workers he would be using and from what departments and are any workers off limits. Mr. Arntz said that the DoE presents to the Board the number of people that the Department would like to use and the Board reviews the request. The Director said that at this point, it is not known how many poll workers or FEDs will be needed because citizen recruitment continues for those positions. He said he does know he needs 14 City workers for the uplink sites.
Commissioner Trasviña asked if there was going to be “a plan that the Board of Supervisors approves, or are they only approving the blanket waiver that we request?” Mr. Arntz said that sometimes the Board approves the waiver and sometimes members want to know how many staff from which departments. The Director explained that the waiver originated three years ago because people were displeased about how some of the elections were run. However, the perception of the DoE has changed since the Commission came to be under the Charter.
Commissioner Trasviña said that he was anticipating complaints that the waiver process was “open ended” and would allow Sheriffs, police officers and other to be involved as Field Election Deputies (FEDs) and poll workers and that there are people who think that certain departments are run very politically and that to these people this allows those departments to send in poll workers to “do something on a supervisorial district, or example.” The Commissioner said that he wanted the waiver to be tight enough, and very clear that it doesn’t do certain things and that there be no room for misinterpretation.
Director Arntz said that he does not make the decision regarding which departments are to work in which precincts. He said that if a City employee wants to assist the Elections Department, he wants competent people to work in the polling places. Mr. Arntz reminded the Commission that there are elections laws in place to protect the process.
President Townsend said that suggesting that working class, City employees who are neighbors, friends and family of other people in the City are not necessarily dishonest.
Commissioner Trasviña said that he agreed with the President but that he wants to “nail down” the plan so that the things that happened in Florida don’t happen here. The Commissioner said that in Boston, there has been a long tradition of police at the polling places, but in San Francisco this is not the case. He said the provision that City workers be prohibited from serving in any capacity or function connected to elections was in the Charter for a reason. The Commissioner said that the Commission needs to know what it is waiving. He added that the Commission needs to know what this is going to allow and what is not allowed. Commissioner Trasviña said that he was reluctant to support the waiver without knowing what it was for.
Commissioner Gleason said that he knows the DoE needs to fill in with City workers when the Department is desperate for poll workers and other positions on election day. He said he was against a general blanket waiver, but perhaps a statement of “last resort” could be added.
Commissioner Gleason asked if the Director could give an update of the numbers of inspectors and poll workers recruited by the next meeting.
Commissioner Chung asked if the Director would provide any document that would be presented to the Board of Supervisors for approval. Additionally, the Commissioner suggested that Sheriffs and police officers be prohibited from working in any capacity other than security.
Director Arntz said that he felt that peace-officer-citizens should be able to volunteer if they did so in civilian clothes.
Commissioner Trasviña asked that the Commission be given an actual plan, even if it has an unspecified number of City employees. The plan should have from what departments the employees will come. Commissioner Trasviña asked members of the public to come forward with their thoughts on the use of City workers so that the Commission could consider them in their preparation for the next meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Mary Bull said that she knew of incidents in which City workers attempted to influence voters. Mary Ratcliff said that if there had been a special recall election, people who went to the polls would have been targeted for harassment. Willie Ratcliff said that citizens who live in public housing are targeted for intimidation and that the Elections Department should be under a consent decree.
This item was TABLED until the Commission’s September 1, 2004 meeting.
- Discussion of the authority of the Elections Commission concerning the proposed recall election and how measures qualify for the ballot. Julia Moll, Deputy City Attorney, said there are statutory procedures for placing measures on the ballot. Some are in the Charter and some in the Municipal Elections Codes, and where neither of these sources specify a rule, the Department follows state law. Neither the Commission nor the DoE has discretion as to whether a measure qualifies for the ballot.
Regarding a recall, Ms. Moll explained, there is a process that includes “a notice of intention” which is delivered to the office holder and is published. Proof of this publication is delivered to the DoE. A petition is circulated. The Charter specifies how many signatures are required to qualify the recall for the ballot. State law specifies the process for verification of signatures, the format of the petition, who may circulate a petition, who may sign a petition, and the process for signature verification. Following the state laws and procedures, if a valid number of signatures have been submitted, the measure qualifies for he ballot. There isn’t any discretionary role on the part of elections officials or the Commission.
Ms. Moll said it is possible to suggest changes in the laws to the Board of Supervisors, some changes may have to go to the voters, ultimately, for approval, and some may have to go to the state legislature for consideration.
President Townsend asked what is the recourse for anyone who disagrees with the decision that has been made by an elections department or by a City Charter or state law.
Ms. Moll said that if one feels that the laws were applied inappropriately, the remedy is to challenge the determination, first by putting one’s concerns in writing to the department, and if the response from the department is that the laws were applied and the procedures were followed, the recourse is to go to court. The Elections Code contemplates that there might be that kind of legal challenge.
Commissioner Chung asked if there are procedures and timelines in place within the DoE, to determine how long it takes for certification. Director Arntz answered that the DoE has 30 days within which to complete the review of a petition. There is no daily timeline of the work because it depends on what other work is being done in the department. This, he said, is why the Department is given 30 days.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Maurice Campbell said that the DoE had problems that were reported in Civil Grand Jury Reports from 1997 to 2002. Mary Ratcliff said she was terribly disappointed that the signatures were found insufficient. Mary Bull said that the Board of Supervisors should bring San Francisco’s ordinances and codes into compliance with the Voters’ Rights Act. Victoria (last name unheard) said she was appalled that the Mayor could appoint someone to fill a seat vacated by a successful recall of a supervisor. Evelyn (Jerrolds?) asked when the Department began to count the signatures and that she feels that voters are disrespected. Willie Ratcliff said that he wants to see an Elections Department that the public can trust.
Commissioner Trasviña asked when there are problems with the content of a petition, is there a place for the proponent to go, either the City Attorney’s Office or the Director of Elections so that they can get a green light that says, “this is now ready for you to circulate? Or is this something that is not the City’s responsibility?” Julie Moll responded that the proponent would need to talk to a private attorney.
Commissioner Trasviña asked if there were errors on the petition, was it up to the proponent to get them right. Ms. Moll responded that the Secretary of State’s office has a form that is essentially recommended for proponents.
Commissioner Trasviña asked if there is an obligation for the City to provide to a recall proponent all the various requirements that proponents of a recall are supposed to follow, such as campaign disclosure, requirements to make the petition correct, timing, or the requisite number of petitions? Ms. Moll replied that there was no such obligation, however, the City has a “Recall Guide”. The guide is not a substitute for consulting an attorney and it states this.
Commissioner Trasviña asked if there was a way for the City to be informed if a petition is being circulated. Ms. Moll answered that a petition can not be circulated without the petitioner taking certain preliminary steps, including, in terms of a recall, delivering a notice of intent to circulate a recall petition. In that way, the DoE registers the proposed recall. The DoE is willing to review petitions and give comments, but the Department can not give legal advice to proponents. The DoE does make available the state’s forms and the Recall Guide.
Commissioner Trasviña said that the DoE should make the Recall Guide immediately available to proponents once they know that a recall has begun, and that this would prevent problems.
- Discussion of placement of candidates’ names on the November ballot. Commissioner Gleason said he wanted this on the agenda because this would be the last Commission meeting before the ballots go to the printer. He said he had attended a meeting in District 5 and there were questions about the ballot lay out. Director Arntz said that there would be ballots along with the Voters Information Pamphlet on public display at the DoE’s front counter and that the examples would be on the website for ten days before they go to print. Mr. Arntz said there was some concern that there would be a column on the backside of the ballot due to RCV. That will not be the case, however. There will be three columns for District 5, containing all 22 of the candidates on one side of the ballot in three languages.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Steven Hill said he was pleased to know sample ballots where available on the website. He said it was important that voters not be confused when marking the arrows on their ballots as to which arrow goes to which candidate.
5. Presentation by Department of Elections Staff regarding Ranked Choice Voting education. President Townsend said that he recognized that most of the audience were present during the previous presentation of RCV that was made at the last Elections Commission meeting and asked the audience if anyone had questions. President Townsend announced that anyone wanting to have a presentation for their organizations, churches, groups, apartment building or their communities, to please contact Charles McNulty of the Elections Department. The President said that he had attended several of Mr. McNulty’s presentation and would be doing so again the next evening and complemented him on his excellent approach in explaining how to vote with RCV.
6. PUBLIC COMMENT: Evelyn (Jerrolds?) asked why the Department waited so long to tell people that RCV would be used in November. President Townsend explained that the Department wasn’t sure that the equipment would be certified in time and once it was Certified by the Secretary of State, the DoE immediately began its preparations for voter outreach and education. Steven Hill said that the Center of Democracy’s website was complimentary to the City’s DoE’s website’s RCV information.
Jay Martin said he is concerned about what would be the message on the tape if the eagle voting machine rejects a ballot. Director Arntz replied that the error messages have already been mapped out and that they follow the language of the Charter. Helen Jones said that she is concerned about senior voters because not all of them have computers to see the ballots in advance of election day. President Townsend responded that the DoE is working on Public Service Announcements for radio and television. He said that senior centers are particularly being targeted for more information. Director Arntz invited Ms. Jones to contact Charles McNulty to come to her group to make a presentation. An Unidentified Speaker asked how the public can go beyond the 3 minute rule for public comment and how can the public learn of follow up, on any their concerns, for example: having a workshop on recall, training session or at least discussions with the police department regarding alleged intimidation of voters in Hunter’s Point, violations of the Voting Rights Act as it relates to the appointment by the Mayor of someone to fill out the term of a recalled Supervisor. President Townsend suggested that the speaker put those issues in writing to the President of the Commission or to convince another Commissioner to put the items on the agenda. Ms. Moll explained that sometimes citizens have spoken to individual Commissioners after a meeting in an attempt to get their item added to an agenda. The President reminded the audience that the Commissioners have phone numbers where the public can reach them.
It was suggested that if members of the audience attend the Voter Outreach and Participation Committee, they may be able to convince the Committee to bring an issue to the attention of the full Commission.
7. Announcements. The Next Voter Outreach and Participation Committee meeting will be on Tuesday, September 14 at 5:00 pm in room 421 of City Hall.
ADJOURNMENT at 8:30 pm.