Elections Commission
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002
Department of Elections
Elections Commission
City and County of San Francisco
Elections Commission
Approved: 5/15/02
Minutes of the Meeting Held
Monday, April 29, 2002
I. President Mendelson called the meeting to order at 4:30 pm and introduced the new Commission Secretary, Shirley Rodriques.
II. ALL COMMISSION MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: Robert Kenealey, Thomas Schulz, Alix Rosenthal, Michael Mendelson, Richard Shadoian, Brenda Stowers, David Serrano-Sewell.
III. Flag Salute
President Mendelson announced that beginning with this meeting, speaker cards will be available for the public to fill out and give to the Secretary if a member of the public wishes to speak on a topic. The purpose of the speaker cards is to insure maximum citizen participation.
IV. Approval of Minutes – There were no minutes for approval.
Public Comment: Peter Fries commented that the Commission was behind in providing minutes. Mr. Fries also brought to the attention of the Commission that the website posted minutes had the wrong meeting convening and adjourning times and the mailed notices are arriving the day of the meeting or much later.
Mendelson moved that approval of the minutes be postponed until appropriate copies are available. PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
V. OFFICER REPORTS:
Commissioner Thomas Schulz reported that the Sheriff’s Department produced an After Action Report on the March 5th Election as requested by the Commission. The report will be made available to the public and Commissioner Schulz asked that members read the report and be prepared to discuss it, if necessary, with the Sheriff at a future meeting.
President Mendelson requested that copies of the report be available for public viewing at the next regular meeting of the Commission.
Commissioner Stowers began her report on Instant Runoff Voting by turning the floor over to Deputy City Attorney Moll. Counsel Moll reported on questions President Mendelson asked previously regarding whether it was advisable to seek an Attorney General opinion or to go to court to seek declaratory relief concerning the legality of instant runoff voting?
Counsel Moll checked with her colleagues who recommended this would not be prudent as this time.
Commissioner Stowers reported that she had a draft letter requesting the Secretary of State support us in implementing Proposition A in 2002 or 2003, which ever recommendation comes forward. Additionally, there is a draft letter asking all vendors to submit to the Secretary of State for certification, how they will implement Proposition A in 2002 and 2003, with timelines and associated costs. Commissioner Stowers expects to send the letters within one week and will ask for a response within two weeks. She will then come back to the Commission with proposals.
President Mendelson asked if the proposal will be in the form of an action on the part of the Commission? Commissioner Stowers responded in the affirmative.
VI. Committee Reports:
Budget and Policy Committee – Re: FYI 2002 Budget.
Commissioner Rosenthal reported that the Committee approved the baseline budget which was then approved by the full Commission. There were, however, two elements which need to be discussed: Possible enhancements to the baseline and proposed cuts to the budget in response to the Mayor’s request to cut 10%. (A list of possible enhancements to the baseline and a table of the 10% in possible cuts were handed out)
Ara Manasian was asked to explain what is an “enhancement”. His explanation was that an enhancement is something that one couldn’t get funded within the baseline.
Commissioner Rosenthal explained that the Committee recommended not to hire FEDs, and that the full Commission ask for waivers to use City employees to fill those posts in the next election. This waiver has been drafted.
Commissioner Shultz asked, “Did your discussion consider the impact of Prop. E, and should there be some kind of testing or review by the Commission before we approve use of employees?”
Commissioner Rosenthal stated that there was discussion of the implications and it was decided that there be full Commission discussion at a future meeting. She said that the Committee passed this budget for the next year assuming that we would be asking for waivers. Regarding the preparation for implementation of instant run off voting, Commissioner Rosenthal said it was the estimate of Ms. Haygood that the costs would be approximately $500,000 for the voter education campaign and project management. It was assumed that we would not institute until November 2003 and needs to be discussed by the Commission.
Commissioner Mendleson asked, what is the basis for this amount?
Commissioner Rosenthal replied that this is just a rough estimate. Mr. Manasian added that it was not a real detailed budget that came up with that number, it was a very preliminary guess by Ms. Haygood. In order to be approved by the Mayor and the Board, there needs to be more details.
Commissioner Stowers asked, was the purpose to make funds available for Prop. A?
Commissioner Rosenthal answered that when Ms Haygood gave the estimate, it was assumed that the $500,000 would go towards implementation in 2003 and any additional funds to implement earlier would need to be requested.
Pilot implementation of a touch screen voting system:
Commissioner Rosenthal suggested that it might be easier to implement instant run off voting if we had the touch screen system. She said the full Commission needs to explore this and suggested a pilot program that could cost $290,000. This amount would be worth it if this assisted us in instant run off voting and that the Committee recommends this. Commissioner Rosenthal said that Ms. Haygood’s election’s process efficiency project, which would cost $150,000 for permanent staff tech people instead of borrowing them during election periods. The former Director felt we needed more tech people year-round. Mr. Manasian clarified by saying these would be limited duration project funding not indefinite.
Commissioner Rosenthal said that these total $940,000 and are the Committee’s recommendations. The full Commission cannot take action until item number 8 on today’s agenda.
Budget Reductions for 10%:
Mr. Manasian explained that the Commission has no control over most of the items in the budget, for example: costs of voter pamphlets and postage. Those we can eliminate or reduce are, for example: poll worker fees, number of poll workers. It is anticipated that the November will have three cards, plus ballot styles – due to the various districts. To reduce ballot costs, the Commission may have to reduce the size to a two card ballot – this is not guaranteed. Mr. Manasian said that having this as a reduction proposal is speculative. The funds need to be put on reserve rather than be cut because we can’t guarantee that we can live with a cut. The Sheriff services being cut would violate Prop. E. We were supposed to come up with $800,000 in cuts, we ended up with $723,000.
Commissioner Mendelson asked, do these numbers represent final cuts? Where do they go from here? When is it due? When will it be presented?
Mr. Manasian answered that these represent “If the department had to come up with 10% in cuts, where would they be?” They do not constitute a real budget cut until the Mayor and Board take them. They go in memo form to show 10% in cuts to the Mayor’s office. This memo is past due and will be presented as soon as the Commission approves it.
Commissioner Stowers provided clarification. The Budget committee, she said, scrutinized the Sheriff’s charges and services for implementation of Prop. E. All charges were provided at an overtime rate. Commissioner Stowers said we are proposing that we negotiate with the Sheriff’s Department to not charge 100% overtime for the services we need.
Commissioner Schulz asked what were the other considerations in the top six potential cuts.
Mr. Manasian replied that the positions for: public information officer, fiscal manager and one IT position were considered and that those positions are already shown in next year’s baseline budget.
Commissioner Kenealey asked Mr. Manasian what he would recommend cutting, as a budget expert. Mr. Manasian stated that cuts recommended are a matter of our own priorities as a department.
Report by the Personnel Committee on the Director search:
Commissioner Shadoian reported that the committee met and he was elected to be the chair. Human Resource Development staff met with the committee and advised that the search is underway and will take two to six months. There is a recommendation of an acting director to make at this meeting later on the agenda and also a motion for the consultant contract with the Secretary of State to come before you later today.
VII. OLD BUSINESS:
Public Comment. Peter Fries commented on the Commission’s By Laws. He reminded the Commission that there were no copies of the By Laws for the public to see if there is to be action on them today and asked if the document was the same as the draft from at the last meeting?
Counsel Moll stated that the By Laws need to be publicly available for at least 10 days prior to adoption. Since they were distributed at the last meeting seven days ago, adoption was tabled to the next meeting.
VIII. NEW BUSINESS:
Public Comment : A speaker stated that the Commission passed, at its last meeting, a baseline budget for $8.6M . He recommended that the touch screen be put off and stated that the idea of regular pay instead of overtime for the Sheriffs is good but to eliminate the Sheriffs would be like stepping into “a political minefield”. The speaker recommended staff furloughs from January to June to help with the expenses.
David Rodgers urged the Commission to look for cuts in areas not mandated by Prop. E. Steven Hill said that with the passage of Prop. 41 there’s $200M to be tapped for voting equipment and there may be other things the money can be used. Mr. Hill said Federal government has two versions that have passed the Senate and the House allocating $3B to the states. It’s not quite law yet, he said, but it will be available within a year or so. This is a good time to implement touch screens and other ideas. Peter Fries: How much are the FEDs to be paid? Kay Burke suggested that recruitment be increased for poll workers who will do the work without pay or for a small stipend - people who will do it out of civic duty. Also, Ms. Burke stated her support for improved training and she said that there were hundreds of extra ballots at the poll where she worked. Ms. Burke stated that we need to consider the voting predilections are for each precinct. We could save money, she said, by not having too many of the less used party ballots at the precinct.
VIII-b. Call for the motion.
Commissioner Rosenthal moved that the Commission accept the recommendation of the Budget and Policy Committee regarding the three enhancements that totaled $940,000 and refers specifically to instant run off voting, pilot touch screen voting system and the elections process efficiency project.
Discussion: Commissioner Schulz recommended that the elections process efficiency project be removed as item number three.
Commissioner Rosenthal agreed and renewed her motion without the efficiency project. The new total is $790,000. THIS MOTION PASSED. (Shadoian had left the room, quorum present).
Commission Rosenthal moved that the Commission accept the three reduction priorities presented earlier in the Committee’s report: Poll Worker Fees ($100,000); Ballot Cost ($300,000); and Services of the Sheriff ($323,000).
Discussion: Commissioner Schulz said he characterizes these as “Poison Pill Reductions”, because we don’t really want to do these. Commissioner Stowers said the poll workers costs included 4 to 5 workers per sight that is an increase over the previous year. This deduction represents running the sites with three workers and we think this will be adequate. Commissioner Stowers stated that the Budget Committee also recognized that the baseline was taken from the previous year when there was not Prop. E or Prop. A. and this is why it was felt that we needed to go forward with enhancements for this budget year. Commissioner Rosenthal added that cutting the services of the Sheriff is difficult and that having them is one of the reasons the election went as well as it did on March 5. She said that in examining this baseline budget, there is very little over which we have discretion and suggested that the Public Information Officer position be cut, although this act appears to save only $15,000. Mr. Manasian said that cut would really amount to $90,000 if the full position was cut. The $15,000 was the incremental costs of the substitution.
Commissioner Rosenthal asked Mr. Manasian what position was being substituted for the Public Information Officer? Mr. Manasian said he thought it was one of the management assistant positions.
Commissioner Serrano-Sewell suggested that the new Director be allowed to decide whether to have a Public Information Officer or not.
President Mendelson ruled out-of-order further discussion of the Public Information Officer position.
MOTION: Commissioner Schulz proposed an amendment to the Motion that we adopt #1 of $100,000, eliminating the words “and training”; that we continue with the $300,000 and substitute $100,000 for the $323,000. To clarify, Commissioner Schulz said he thinks the reduction should be to the number, not their training; and until we have all read the Sheriff’s report in which they do commit to reducing their costs, it’s reasonable that $100,000 is well within the range of something that is approachable. SECONDED (Commissioner Shadoian returns to the meeting). MOTION should read: That we accept the reduction priorities as presented forthwith: Priority 1 will be poll workers fees by reducing hiring for the November 2002 election; Priority 2 will be ballot costs – to take measures to reduce ballot costs for the November 2002 election; Priority 3 services of the Sheriff – reduce the costs of the services of the Sheriff for providing security- $100,000. The total to be $500,000. MOTION PASSED unanimously.
VIII-a. The Commission authorizes the Chair to do all things necessary and proper to establish a consulting contract for expert elections consultation.
Discussion: Commissioner Rosenthal asked how much it will cost? Commissioner Shadoian replied that he would keep members posted. Kenealey asked to whom this contract would be given? Shadoian replied that it would be with the Secretary of State who has an established a team of retired department of election experts. This team would be available to the Commission and the Director to help with elections. MOTION PASSED unanimously.
Public Comment on Closed Session Items:
Kay Burke asked if the discussion would be about the new Acting Director or about a Director of Elections? Commissioner Mendelson answered that it was the Personnel Committee’s director search, appointment of acting director and the establishment of a consultant contract with the Secretary of State. Ms. Burke said she understood we might want to hire someone from within the department who is currently working there and that one of the problems is that there is a culture of low standards within the department. Chris Bowman said he saw no reason for the closed session, and that closed sessions placed a “cloud over the Commission”. Douglas Comstock suggested we get someone with institutional memory who knows something about the department because time is short and we don’t have time to break in someone new. David Rodgers spoke about hiring a consultant to look at the Department and determine the assets and problems and who will be able to advise the new Director once s/he is on board.
Richard Lee, who described himself as a journalist, urged Commission to reconsider its decision to keep private the decision to fire the Director. Peter Fries wanted to know if postings of Election Commission Minutes and agendas have to be posted
CLOSED SESSION
MOTION made by Commissioner David Serrano-Sewell: That the Election Commission offer the position of Acting Director of Elections to Jonathan Arntz, effective Monday, May 6, 2002, upon submission of resume and three references and successful review and approval by President Mendelson and the Chair of the Personnel Committee, Commissioner Shadoian. SECONDED by Commissioner Schulz.
Public Comment on this MOTION:
Doug Comstock congratulated the Commission on finding “such an excellent Acting Director.”
NO FURTHER DISCUSSION:
UNANIMOUS vote 7-0, to offer employment to Mr. Arntz based upon the terms and conditions previously stated.
MOTION to disclose deliberations of the CLOSED SESSION. MOVED to not disclose. PASSED
STATEMENT OF ACTION:
President Mendelson stated: The Personnel Committee, having investigated and interviewed the candidate, Jonathan Arntz, has determined that he possesses the requisite qualifications to serve as the Acting Director of the Department of Elections and having so determined that, the Commission hereby offers him the position of Acting Director subject to successful review and approval of his resume and three references by President Mendelson and the Chair of the Personnel Committee, Commissioner Shadoian, employment to commence on May 6, 2002.
The appointment of this Acting Director does not mean that the Human Resources search, the nation-wide search for the permanent Director for the Department of Elections, is in abeyance. This is perceived by this Commission as an interim act to fill that position until such time as a permanent Director is selected.
Presently there exists a Civil Service list. That list is controlling herein. By that, I mean, unless the four members of the presently constituted Civil Service list or at least two of them determine they do no want to participate, that will exhaust that Civil Service list. At that time, we would be able to select an individual to act as Interim Director. This would be the case until another list, or usually five names, is developed from who we can select a successful candidate.
The Commission Secretary announced that the regularly scheduled meeting for Wednesday, May 1st is cancelled. The next scheduled meeting of the Elections Commission will be Wednesday, May 15, 2002, at 7:00 pm in Room 408, City Hall.
Meeting adjourned.