Elections Commission
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002
City and County of San Francisco
Elections Commission
Approved: March 19, 2008
Minutes of the Meeting held
City Hall, Room 408
February 20, 2008
- President Gleason called the meeting to order at 6:20 pm.
2. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Arnold Townsend, Gerard Gleason, Richard P. Matthews, Winnie Yu, Jennifer Meek, Joseph B. Phair, Deputy City Attorney Jon Givner and Director John Arntz.
3. ANNOUNCEMENTS: President Gleason announced there have been new appointments to the Budget and Oversight of Public Elections Committee: Commissioners Matthews, Phair and Yu, with Commissioner Yu as Chairperson.
- on any issue within the Elections Commission’s general
Jurisdiction. Tim Meyer said that the Director was given a demonstration of a voting machine on a CD had been delivered to the Director, and that CD can print a ballot for the user. Brent Turner added that there will be updates to this CD in the future, and that he has another copy if anyone wants to see it. Mr. Turner said that there are open source systems currently going for certification, and mentioned his hopes for the future of the Open Source Task Force.
5. Director’s Report.
Ballot Distribution: The Division has been running the canvass at Pier 48 for the past two weeks, in addition to processing the ballots in City Hall. There is a possibility of completing the canvassing by the end of this week but there is the probability that it may take a few days longer.
Budget and Personnel: The Division is concentrating on getting the budget information in the system since tomorrow is the deadline.
Campaign Services: There will be an April Special Primary Election. This is new information since the last Commission meeting. The nomination period ends Monday, February 25, and the Division is preparing the guides for this as well as the June election.
Outreach: This Division’s staff has been working with other Divisions on the provisional and absentee ballots, and canvassing. Additionally, staff attended 180 outreach events for the February election, made presentations to over 8000 people, and collected over 12,000 registration cards. The Associated Press ran a story that was picked up by the San Jose Mercury News about the Department’s ex-offender program.
Publications: The Division’s staff is co-managing the canvassing, is involved in the logic and accuracy testing of the equipment as well as processing provisional and absentee ballots. The Division will be conducting the first meeting of the Ballot and Simplification Committee meeting for the June election. The Director reminded the Commission that this is the third time in three or four years that the Department has had to work on simultaneous elections.
Poll Locating/ADA: The Division has sent out availability letters to precincts which will be involved in the April Special Primary Election, and has received 60 responses. This Division is the first to experience the positive impact of the new Pier 48 space because they will not have to move equipment and materials to multiple locations for the upcoming elections. The single location staging is much more efficient.
Pollworker Division: Pollworker evaluation forms from voters and evaluations from the Field Election Deputies (FEDs) are being reviewed. Availability letters to workers for the April Special Primary Elections have been mailed, and checks have been mailed to the February election workers.
Technology Division: Staff is issuing daily election results reports. The Director reported that database support has demanded much of the staff’s time over the past several weeks, as preparations are made for the April and June elections.
Commissioner Townsend praised Charles McNulty and his Outreach staff on the work they have done to make ex-offender voting outreach a success.
Commissioner Meek congratulated the Department on the ex-offender program and the success of the February election with the added difficulties of transferring to a new voting equipment, and a new staging location.
Public Comment. David Pilpel said that he had suggested that the City look into reimbursement for the April election from the state and asked if there had been an answer, and will the Voter Information Pamphlet (VIP) for that election be produced with a minimum amount of paper. Commissioners Matthews and Gleason asked the Director about his plans. Director Arntz responded that there will be a VIP, he is looking into reimbursement and added that there will be 107 precincts involved in the April election.
6. Commissioners’ Reports and Updates on Observations and Activities Related to the Conduct of the February 5, 2008 Presidential Primary Elections, including assigned observations.
Commissioner Matthews reported that on February 13, he observed the paper audit trail manual tally at Pier 48. There were 132 precincts at which at least one person voted using the Edge Equipment. Most of these machines had only one or two users. Those examining the manual tally reported that the machines had been very effective and the tally was matched with the information from the chip in the equipment. Commissioner Matthews plans to give a more detailed report and to share photos he took at the next Commission meeting.
Commissioner Yu reported that she visited the call center for voters with language needs and the general problem center where concerns were being logged on election day. She reported that both centers were functioning well and had either paper or electronic back up for their reports and response times for resolving problems. The Commissioner observed that the general turnout of voters in City Hall was high for this election.
Commissioner Phair reported that two weeks prior to the election he toured the new facilities at Pier 48 with the Director and the Pier 48 Manager. The location was well-staged, well-organized and very cold and windy. He said staff were doing an excellent job. The cyclone fence hadn’t yet been installed, and the facilities were minimum. Security appeared to be very good and staff were carefully loading, testing, locking and sealing equipment in preparation to stage for transfer to the polling sites. Commissioner Phair also took his first tour of the Department and said he was very impressed with the staff – everyone was very cooperative, knowledgeable, and willing to take the time to speak with him and explain their responsibilities and how their areas functioned. The Commissioner said he was impressed with the volume of materials that passes through the offices, especially the vote-by-mail ballots and their sorting and that he hoped that the facilities at Pier 48 can be improved to provide better working conditions for the people who work there.
Commissioner Meek passed out a draft of her report to the Commission regarding her observations of provisional ballot processing. She explained that the ballots go through three stages of review before the decision is made whether a ballot will be counted. There were approximately 19,000 ballots from the February election which is much more than usual, and it is believed that a large number of voters voting outside their party was the cause. The Commissioner said that the process was in line with the Election Plan for this election, and that although there were multiple areas of review for the ballots, which is very time consuming, this assures that every ballot has a fair chance of being accepted. Commissioner Meek added that she was very impressed with the public access to view these procedures. She recommended that perhaps the number of provisional ballots could be reduced through additional voter education about what happens to ballots, and suggested that this topic could be something for the Commission to examine further.
Commissioner Townsend reported that he visited his polling precinct although he votes absentee, and he visited City Hall. He observed staff were working hard, and said that this has been the case for the past six years that he has been a Commissioner.
Commissioner Gleason observed the remake process. He explained that remakes are done to provisional, damaged, unreadable or unprocessable ballots that don’t make it through the regular voting equipment. These ballots have to be hand duplicated. The Commissioner took a brief tour on February 12 of Room 34, and was given an “Observer Guide” which he said was excellent in explaining the process. There were six to eight staff in Room 34, and the supervisor approached him at the entrance, showed him an original random ballot and the duplicate that was made with its the control number and the supervisor explained the entire process to the Commissioner. Commissioner Gleason observed that the orange plastic numbered seals that are placed on the Insight machine and other materials don’t function as a security seal because they come off and can be reapplied too easily. He suggested that they be made of paper so they must be broken for accessibility if their purpose is to provide security.
Public Comments. Brent Turner said that in his experience of observing elections in many counties, San Francisco’s elections procedures are, in his opinion, “at the top”. David Pilpel said that he appreciates the process of the Commissioners reporting on their assignments and that he hopes the Budget and Oversight of Public Elections Committee will review all the comments and bring it back to the full Commission as part of the review and evaluation of the Election Plan.
7. Report from the Budget and Oversight of Public Elections Committee regarding meeting of February 12, 2008. Commissioner Yu reported that the new Committee met and reviewed the budget documents provided by the Director for fiscal year 2008-09. Additional documentation including an organizational chart and summary of permanent salaries were provided. After discussion, the Committee agreed to recommend that the budget be approved by the Commission pending receipt and review of these documents by the full Commission.
8. NEW BUSINESS
- Commissioner Meek asked that two items be added to the budget: $10,000 for a Commission office. Director Arntz agreed and said he could add it to the budget and asked the Commission to support the addition by writing an explanation for the funds. Commissioner Meek said she would write a substantiation for the funding. Commissioner Matthews added that the Committee had been advised at the BOPEC meeting to provide a paragraph in the budget explaining the duties of the Commission Secretary to justify that salary. President Gleason asked if the entire Pollworker Division was staffed by people having temporary status. Director Arntz said that is true. President Gleason said that this is a problem and that should these workers leave, there would be no continuum of experience. Director Arntz said that the temporary staff status is a result of what the Board and Budget Analyst approved years ago, and the Department has been trying to change this since then. He asked the Commission to provide support for permanent staffing.
Director Arntz advised that if the Commission approved the budget at this meeting, the budget will still have more changes in the months ahead.
Commissioner Phair asked where are the budget materials that are going to the Mayor, since what the Commission has is a summary. Director Arntz said that what the Commission has is a report from the Controller’s Budget Report for the entire City, and that he presented the information as a “snapshot demonstration” of the budget. Commissioner Phair asked what is the $19M number? Director Arntz answered that it was for the current fiscal year, and the Commission would be approving $13M for the upcoming fiscal year. The drop is because there will be fewer elections in that cycle.
Commissioner Phair asked if “work orders” would come from a budget item. Director Arntz replied that “work orders” come from the General Fund, and is part of the DoE Budget. The Commissioner said that he was familiar with a budget that had a spread sheet of materials and supplies, and one for salaries with each person’s name, position and current salary and any increases expected in those salaries. Director Arntz said that the City’s budget would essentially show the same information.
Commissioner Matthews called the Director’s attention to the Organizational Chart he presented at this meeting and noted that only one person’s name was assigned to a position. He asked who the names were for the top line of people. Director Arntz said that it would be a simple task to email all the names to the Commission President with the proper spellings. Commissioner Matthews asked if the top line of Managers on the Chart had the proper classifications and pay rate for the work performed. Director Arntz said that he was seeking management positions for those staff but that at present, what is on the Chart is current. Commissioner Matthews asked if the Commission could lobby for making those positions equitable in pay to their titles. Director Arntz said he would welcome the Commission having conversations with the Mayor’s Budget Office or the Mayor to explain its concerns for the positions and classifications for the Department. Director Arntz said he would let the Commission know which positions to promote.
Commissioner Phair referred to the FYI Budget information regarding staff salaries the Director gave the Commission recently for the current fiscal year (2007-2008) and asked if the corollary for this year was to be $2.176 M for Permanent and $1.9M for Temporary Staffing? Director Arntz replied that this is correct.
Deputy City Attorney Jon Givner suggested that if the Commission wanted to authorize one or more Commissioners to draft a letter regarding the budget, that it be done formally.
Commissioner Matthews MOVED that the Commission authorize Commissioner Meek to draft statements about the Commission’s Real Estate needs and a description about the Commission Secretary position for inclusion in the DoE Budget for 2008-2009.
Commissioner Phair offered a resolution that it is the recommendation of the Commission that these letters be drafted and that Commissioner Meek put together the background materials for support of those two items.
Commissioner Matthews volunteered to draft the portion of the letter to explain the Commission’s support that all Division Managers be upgraded to managerial positions, be classified and paid properly. He added that he would begin this assignment once the Director sends him the information about the managers’ classifications and salaries for staff for whom the Director is seeking upgrades.
Commissioner Meek SECONDED.
Public Comment. David Pilpel said it was difficult for him to comment on the budget because what has been given to the Commission is incomplete information. He suggested that it would be confusing if the Commission was supporting a item not in the budget – like the $10,000 for Commission office space. It would take a motion to amend the proposed budget to upgrade the managers already listed in the budget proposal.
President Gleason asked for clarification whether the Commission was adding to the current budget. It was agreed that this could be resolved by making it a part of the Budget MOTION.
Deputy City Attorney Givner said that the Commission’s authority regarding the Budget was to approve or not approve it, not to make line edit changes to it. However, the Commission could make a recommendation, but ultimately its vote is yes or no on the Budget.
Commissioner Phair said that this is understood and that the resolution will make recommendations.
A Roll Call Vote to approve this resolution was UNANIMOUS.
Commissioner Phair MOVED that the Budget for 2008-2009 be approved as presented and that the Commission recommend to the Department the allocation of $10,000, or the appropriate amount, for a Commission Office space for its secretary. Commissioner Meek SECONDED.
Commissioner Townsend said that he was confused by the Commission approving the Budget as presented and in the same motion change the Budget.
Deputy City Attorney Givner explained that the Commission was approving the Budget as submitted and at the same time was recommending that the Director add the $10,000 to the Budget at his discretion, and that the Commission would approve a Budget with this additional $10,000 for real estate.
Public Comment. David Pilpel reminded the Commission that it did not have all the information it needs to approve the Budget. He said that the current ASO detailed in the information given to the Commission has 22 positions, and does not reconcile to the Organizational Chart presented tonight which shows 27 positions. There are also positions on the Chart that are not included in the Budget information presented to the Commission, and there’s no detail included for the 2008-09 Budget, just a summary amount for permanent salaries. The Temporary salaries ($1.9M) in the Director’s handout for tonight’s meeting does not reconcile to the $2.231M that was included in the material presented last week; the detail in the materials and supplies and non-personal services does not reconcile to the eight page chart from last week. Mr. Pilpel said that he disagreed with the Deputy City Attorney regarding whether the Commission has the ability to amend the Budget, he said that it was his understanding that all Commissions with Budgetary approval authority have the ability to amend the budget that’s presented by their departments. He said that the hearings for approval of the Elections Department Budget have not assisted him, as a member of the public, with enough information to form an opinion whether the Budget is adequate because he has not been given the information he has been requesting for over a month and that the level of detail of information has been inadequate.
The Roll Call Vote to approve the Elections Department Budget for FYI 2008-2009 was: Matthews – Yes; Townsend – Yes; Phair – Yes; Yu – Yes; Meek - No; and Gleason – Yes. Motion CARRIED 5 to 1.
- (Commissioner Gleason)
President Gleason presented a copy of an email from a member of the public who complained that the format of the February 5, 2008 Presidential Primary Ballot was confusing because the ballot’s formatting and design put more emphasis on the propositions. The complainant didn’t realize he hadn’t noticed and voted for the Presidential Candidate until his ballot had already been processed. President Gleason also presented sample ballots from previous elections along with a sample of the ballot in question and explained that he understood that the Department was making good use of the least amount of paper, but he understood why the member of the public was complaining. The Commissioner said that he witnessed voters with the same concern, not being able to locate the Presidential Candidates on the ballot, when he was at the polls on Election Day. He suggested that perhaps the pollworkers could point out where the candidates are if there’s a ballot with this same configuration in the future.
Commissioner Phair said that he had a voter make the same comment to him and that the voter almost missed seeing the Presidential Candidates boxes on the ballot. He said that this election had been unique because the DoE had so many ballot propositions which took up most of the space on the ballot. He suggested that a citizen advisory group, perhaps the Ballot Simplification Committee, look at ballot designs – like a fresh set of eyes – and give appropriate comments to the Director of Elections.
Commissioner Townsend said that he voted and thought the ballot wasn’t a problem. He said that voters should look at the entire page. The Commissioner said he was concerned that one letter of complaint to the Commission was not necessarily something the Commission should take up as an issue. He said the complainant deserves a response from the Department not the Commission.
President Gleason responded that the new voting machines get down to very small fractional numbers of voters, and the Commission should respond to fractional numbers of voters. He reminded the Commission of Commissioner Matthews report earlier in the meeting of 132 voters on the touch screen voting devices, and that is a small number. Although the Commission received only one letter regarding this concern, President Gleason said he encountered two voters who expressed confusion at the polling site he worked on Election Day, and asked how many others the Commission didn’t hear from or who weren’t even aware that they missed this part of the ballot.
Commissioner Townsend responded that he couldn’t imagine a voter forgetting to vote for a Presidential candidate.
President Gleason said that this was not an action item and that he presented it as “food for thought” for caution’s sake.
Public Comment. Alec Bash said that although everyone in the meeting room could have figured out the ballot, many people were voting for the first time. He said the ballot design is very important and he hoped that professionals like the Ballot Simplification Committee could take a look at ballot designs and listed several states and situations where ballot design had caused problems in past elections. Mr. Bash suggested that if the narrow column with the candidates had been on the right hand side of the ballot, voters may not have missed it. David Pilpel suggested that it might be worth a special hearing to discuss ballot designs, layouts and styles. He referred to a recent L. A. Times story about a ballot design problem in that county. Kevin Shiue said that the recent election was the first time he worked as a pollworker and that he had witnessed several voters who had missed the candidates on the ballot. He suggested that because the Insight Voting Machines reject double and no votes, perhaps it could reject ballots that have blank responses for parts of the ballot, forcing the pollworker to manually input the ballot if it was the voters intend to leave a section vacant. Mr. Shiue asked if there was any user testing of a ballot design before it is finalized.
Commissioner Phair asked if the Director could respond to the question regarding user testing of ballot designs. Director Arntz responded that there is no user review of the ballots, and that they are formatted according to the requirements of the Elections Code. He said that the ballot style in question has been used before in primaries.
- Discussion and possible action to approve the Minutes of the
January 16, 2008 Commission meeting.
Commissioner Meek MOVED and Commissioner Yu SECONDED approval of the minutes. The Roll Call Vote was UNANIMOUS to approve the minutes.
9. Discussion regarding items for future agendas
President Gleason said that he will have pollworker feedback on their experiences during the election on the next agenda. He asked the Commission Secretary to help to send out a press advisory, similar to the one used for the Voting Systems Forum the Commission held in the past, to get pollworkers to attend. President Gleason said that these workers, who are spending 14 and 16 hours on Election Day with ballots and voters (some of whom have 10+ years experience), would be able to supply worthwhile feedback, advice and possibly praise to the Department.
Public Comment. David Pilpel asked if the Election Plan for the Special Election would be on the agenda for the next full Elections Commission meeting.
ADJOURNMENT at 7:54 pm
City and County of San Francisco
Elections Commission
Approved: _______
Minutes of the Meeting held
City Hall, Room 408
February 20, 2008
1. President Gleason called the meeting to order at 6:20 pm.
2. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Arnold Townsend, Gerard Gleason, Richard P. Matthews, Winnie Yu, Jennifer Meek, Joseph B. Phair, Deputy City Attorney Jon Givner and Director John Arntz.
3. ANNOUNCEMENTS: President Gleason announced there have been new appointments to the Budget and Oversight of Public Elections Committee: Commissioners Matthews, Phair and Yu, with Commissioner Yu as Chairperson.
4. Public comment on any issue within the Elections Commission’s general
Jurisdiction. Tim Meyer said that the Director was given a demonstration of a voting machine on a CD had been delivered to the Director, and that CD can print a ballot for the user. Brent Turner added that there will be updates to this CD in the future, and that he has another copy if anyone wants to see it. Mr. Turner said that there are open source systems currently going for certification, and mentioned his hopes for the future of the Open Source Task Force.
5. Director’s Report.
Ballot Distribution: The Division has been running the canvass at Pier 48 for the past two weeks, in addition to processing the ballots in City Hall. There is a possibility of completing the canvassing by the end of this week but there is the probability that it may take a few days longer.
Budget and Personnel: The Division is concentrating on getting the budget information in the system since tomorrow is the deadline.
Campaign Services: There will be an April Special Primary Election. This is new information since the last Commission meeting. The nomination period ends Monday, February 25, and the Division is preparing the guides for this as well as the June election.
Outreach: This Division’s staff has been working with other Divisions on the provisional and absentee ballots, and canvassing. Additionally, staff attended 180 outreach events for the February election, made presentations to over 8000 people, and collected over 12,000 registration cards. The Associated Press ran a story that was picked up by the San Jose Mercury News about the Department’s ex-offender program.
Publications: The Division’s staff is co-managing the canvassing, is involved in the logic and accuracy testing of the equipment as well as processing provisional and absentee ballots. The Division will be conducting the first meeting of the Ballot and Simplification Committee meeting for the June election. The Director reminded the Commission that this is the third time in three or four years that the Department has had to work on simultaneous elections.
Poll Locating/ADA: The Division has sent out availability letters to precincts which will be involved in the April Special Primary Election, and has received 60 responses. This Division is the first to experience the positive impact of the new Pier 48 space because they will not have to move equipment and materials to multiple locations for the upcoming elections. The single location staging is much more efficient.
Pollworker Division: Pollworker evaluation forms from voters and evaluations from the Field Election Deputies (FEDs) are being reviewed. Availability letters to workers for the April Special Primary Elections have been mailed, and checks have been mailed to the February election workers.
Technology Division: Staff is issuing daily election results reports. The Director reported that database support has demanded much of the staff’s time over the past several weeks, as preparations are made for the April and June elections.
Commissioner Townsend praised Charles McNulty and his Outreach staff on the work they have done to make ex-offender voting outreach a success.
Commissioner Meek congratulated the Department on the ex-offender program and the success of the February election with the added difficulties of transferring to a new voting equipment, and a new staging location.
Public Comment. David Pilpel said that he had suggested that the City look into reimbursement for the April election from the state and asked if there had been an answer, and will the Voter Information Pamphlet (VIP) for that election be produced with a minimum amount of paper. Commissioners Matthews and Gleason asked the Director about his plans. Director Arntz responded that there will be a VIP, he is looking into reimbursement and added that there will be 107 precincts involved in the April election.
6. Commissioners’ Reports and Updates on Observations and Activities Related to the Conduct of the February 5, 2008 Presidential Primary Elections, including assigned observations.
Commissioner Matthews reported that on February 13, he observed the paper audit trail manual tally at Pier 48. There were 132 precincts at which at least one person voted using the Edge Equipment. Most of these machines had only one or two users. Those examining the manual tally reported that the machines had been very effective and the tally was matched with the information from the chip in the equipment. Commissioner Matthews plans to give a more detailed report and to share photos he took at the next Commission meeting.
Commissioner Yu reported that she visited the call center for voters with language needs and the general problem center where concerns were being logged on election day. She reported that both centers were functioning well and had either paper or electronic back up for their reports and response times for resolving problems. The Commissioner observed that the general turnout of voters in City Hall was high for this election.
Commissioner Phair reported that two weeks prior to the election he toured the new facilities at Pier 48 with the Director and the Pier 48 Manager. The location was well-staged, well-organized and very cold and windy. He said staff were doing an excellent job. The cyclone fence hadn’t yet been installed, and the facilities were minimum. Security appeared to be very good and staff were carefully loading, testing, locking and sealing equipment in preparation to stage for transfer to the polling sites. Commissioner Phair also took his first tour of the Department and said he was very impressed with the staff – everyone was very cooperative, knowledgeable, and willing to take the time to speak with him and explain their responsibilities and how their areas functioned. The Commissioner said he was impressed with the volume of materials that passes through the offices, especially the vote-by-mail ballots and their sorting and that he hoped that the facilities at Pier 48 can be improved to provide better working conditions for the people who work there.
Commissioner Meek passed out a draft of her report to the Commission regarding her observations of provisional ballot processing. She explained that the ballots go through three stages of review before the decision is made whether a ballot will be counted. There were approximately 19,000 ballots from the February election which is much more than usual, and it is believed that a large number of voters voting outside their party was the cause. The Commissioner said that the process was in line with the Election Plan for this election, and that although there were multiple areas of review for the ballots, which is very time consuming, this assures that every ballot has a fair chance of being accepted. Commissioner Meek added that she was very impressed with the public access to view these procedures. She recommended that perhaps the number of provisional ballots could be reduced through additional voter education about what happens to ballots, and suggested that this topic could be something for the Commission to examine further.
Commissioner Townsend reported that he visited his polling precinct although he votes absentee, and he visited City Hall. He observed staff were working hard, and said that this has been the case for the past six years that he has been a Commissioner.
Commissioner Gleason observed the remake process. He explained that remakes are done to provisional, damaged, unreadable or unprocessable ballots that don’t make it through the regular voting equipment. These ballots have to be hand duplicated. The Commissioner took a brief tour on February 12 of Room 34, and was given an “Observer Guide” which he said was excellent in explaining the process. There were six to eight staff in Room 34, and the supervisor approached him at the entrance, showed him an original random ballot and the duplicate that was made with its the control number and the supervisor explained the entire process to the Commissioner. Commissioner Gleason observed that the orange plastic numbered seals that are placed on the Insight machine and other materials don’t function as a security seal because they come off and can be reapplied too easily. He suggested that they be made of paper so they must be broken for accessibility if their purpose is to provide security.
Public Comments. Brent Turner said that in his experience of observing elections in many counties, San Francisco’s elections procedures are, in his opinion, “at the top”. David Pilpel said that he appreciates the process of the Commissioners reporting on their assignments and that he hopes the Budget and Oversight of Public Elections Committee will review all the comments and bring it back to the full Commission as part of the review and evaluation of the Election Plan.
7. Report from the Budget and Oversight of Public Elections Committee regarding meeting of February 12, 2008. Commissioner Yu reported that the new Committee met and reviewed the budget documents provided by the Director for fiscal year 2008-09. Additional documentation including an organizational chart and summary of permanent salaries were provided. After discussion, the Committee agreed to recommend that the budget be approved by the Commission pending receipt and review of these documents by the full Commission.
8. NEW BUSINESS
(a) Discussion and possible action to approve the Department of Elections’ Budget for Fiscal Year 2008-2009. Commissioner Meek asked that two items be added to the budget: $10,000 for a Commission office. Director Arntz agreed and said he could add it to the budget and asked the Commission to support the addition by writing an explanation for the funds. Commissioner Meek said she would write a substantiation for the funding. Commissioner Matthews added that the Committee had been advised at the BOPEC meeting to provide a paragraph in the budget explaining the duties of the Commission Secretary to justify that salary. President Gleason asked if the entire Pollworker Division was staffed by people having temporary status. Director Arntz said that is true. President Gleason said that this is a problem and that should these workers leave, there would be no continuum of experience. Director Arntz said that the temporary staff status is a result of what the Board and Budget Analyst approved years ago, and the Department has been trying to change this since then. He asked the Commission to provide support for permanent staffing.
Director Arntz advised that if the Commission approved the budget at this meeting, the budget will still have more changes in the months ahead.
Commissioner Phair asked where are the budget materials that are going to the Mayor, since what the Commission has is a summary. Director Arntz said that what the Commission has is a report from the Controller’s Budget Report for the entire City, and that he presented the information as a “snapshot demonstration” of the budget. Commissioner Phair asked what is the $19M number? Director Arntz answered that it was for the current fiscal year, and the Commission would be approving $13M for the upcoming fiscal year. The drop is because there will be fewer elections in that cycle.
Commissioner Phair asked if “work orders” would come from a budget item. Director Arntz replied that “work orders” come from the General Fund, and is part of the DoE Budget. The Commissioner said that he was familiar with a budget that had a spread sheet of materials and supplies, and one for salaries with each person’s name, position and current salary and any increases expected in those salaries. Director Arntz said that the City’s budget would essentially show the same information.
Commissioner Matthews called the Director’s attention to the Organizational Chart he presented at this meeting and noted that only one person’s name was assigned to a position. He asked who the names were for the top line of people. Director Arntz said that it would be a simple task to email all the names to the Commission President with the proper spellings. Commissioner Matthews asked if the top line of Managers on the Chart had the proper classifications and pay rate for the work performed. Director Arntz said that he was seeking management positions for those staff but that at present, what is on the Chart is current. Commissioner Matthews asked if the Commission could lobby for making those positions equitable in pay to their titles. Director Arntz said he would welcome the Commission having conversations with the Mayor’s Budget Office or the Mayor to explain its concerns for the positions and classifications for the Department. Director Arntz said he would let the Commission know which positions to promote.
Commissioner Phair referred to the FYI Budget information regarding staff salaries the Director gave the Commission recently for the current fiscal year (2007-2008) and asked if the corollary for this year was to be $2.176 M for Permanent and $1.9M for Temporary Staffing? Director Arntz replied that this is correct.
Deputy City Attorney Jon Givner suggested that if the Commission wanted to authorize one or more Commissioners to draft a letter regarding the budget, that it be done formally.
Commissioner Matthews MOVED that the Commission authorize Commissioner Meek to draft statements about the Commission’s Real Estate needs and a description about the Commission Secretary position for inclusion in the DoE Budget for 2008-2009.
Commissioner Phair offered a resolution that it is the recommendation of the Commission that these letters be drafted and that Commissioner Meek put together the background materials for support of those two items.
Commissioner Matthews volunteered to draft the portion of the letter to explain the Commission’s support that all Division Managers be upgraded to managerial positions, be classified and paid properly. He added that he would begin this assignment once the Director sends him the information about the managers’ classifications and salaries for staff for whom the Director is seeking upgrades.
Commissioner Meek SECONDED.
Public Comment. David Pilpel said it was difficult for him to comment on the budget because what has been given to the Commission is incomplete information. He suggested that it would be confusing if the Commission was supporting a item not in the budget – like the $10,000 for Commission office space. It would take a motion to amend the proposed budget to upgrade the managers already listed in the budget proposal.
President Gleason asked for clarification whether the Commission was adding to the current budget. It was agreed that this could be resolved by making it a part of the Budget MOTION.
Deputy City Attorney Givner said that the Commission’s authority regarding the Budget was to approve or not approve it, not to make line edit changes to it. However, the Commission could make a recommendation, but ultimately its vote is yes or no on the Budget.
Commissioner Phair said that this is understood and that the resolution will make recommendations.
A Roll Call Vote to approve this resolution was UNANIMOUS.
Commissioner Phair MOVED that the Budget for 2008-2009 be approved as presented and that the Commission recommend to the Department the allocation of $10,000, or the appropriate amount, for a Commission Office space for its secretary. Commissioner Meek SECONDED.
Commissioner Townsend said that he was confused by the Commission approving the Budget as presented and in the same motion change the Budget.
Deputy City Attorney Givner explained that the Commission was approving the Budget as submitted and at the same time was recommending that the Director add the $10,000 to the Budget at his discretion, and that the Commission would approve a Budget with this additional $10,000 for real estate.
Public Comment. David Pilpel reminded the Commission that it did not have all the information it needs to approve the Budget. He said that the current ASO detailed in the information given to the Commission has 22 positions, and does not reconcile to the Organizational Chart presented tonight which shows 27 positions. There are also positions on the Chart that are not included in the Budget information presented to the Commission, and there’s no detail included for the 2008-09 Budget, just a summary amount for permanent salaries. The Temporary salaries ($1.9M) in the Director’s handout for tonight’s meeting does not reconcile to the $2.231M that was included in the material presented last week; the detail in the materials and supplies and non-personal services does not reconcile to the eight page chart from last week. Mr. Pilpel said that he disagreed with the Deputy City Attorney regarding whether the Commission has the ability to amend the Budget, he said that it was his understanding that all Commissions with Budgetary approval authority have the ability to amend the budget that’s presented by their departments. He said that the hearings for approval of the Elections Department Budget have not assisted him, as a member of the public, with enough information to form an opinion whether the Budget is adequate because he has not been given the information he has been requesting for over a month and that the level of detail of information has been inadequate.
The Roll Call Vote to approve the Elections Department Budget for FYI 2008-2009 was: Matthews – Yes; Townsend – Yes; Phair – Yes; Yu – Yes; Meek - No; and Gleason – Yes. Motion CARRIED 5 to 1.
(b) Discussion and possible action on communications to the Commission from the Public. (Commissioner Gleason)
President Gleason presented a copy of an email from a member of the public who complained that the format of the February 5, 2008 Presidential Primary Ballot was confusing because the ballot’s formatting and design put more emphasis on the propositions. The complainant didn’t realize he hadn’t noticed and voted for the Presidential Candidate until his ballot had already been processed. President Gleason also presented sample ballots from previous elections along with a sample of the ballot in question and explained that he understood that the Department was making good use of the least amount of paper, but he understood why the member of the public was complaining. The Commissioner said that he witnessed voters with the same concern, not being able to locate the Presidential Candidates on the ballot, when he was at the polls on Election Day. He suggested that perhaps the pollworkers could point out where the candidates are if there’s a ballot with this same configuration in the future.
Commissioner Phair said that he had a voter make the same comment to him and that the voter almost missed seeing the Presidential Candidates boxes on the ballot. He said that this election had been unique because the DoE had so many ballot propositions which took up most of the space on the ballot. He suggested that a citizen advisory group, perhaps the Ballot Simplification Committee, look at ballot designs – like a fresh set of eyes – and give appropriate comments to the Director of Elections.
Commissioner Townsend said that he voted and thought the ballot wasn’t a problem. He said that voters should look at the entire page. The Commissioner said he was concerned that one letter of complaint to the Commission was not necessarily something the Commission should take up as an issue. He said the complainant deserves a response from the Department not the Commission.
President Gleason responded that the new voting machines get down to very small fractional numbers of voters, and the Commission should respond to fractional numbers of voters. He reminded the Commission of Commissioner Matthews report earlier in the meeting of 132 voters on the touch screen voting devices, and that is a small number. Although the Commission received only one letter regarding this concern, President Gleason said he encountered two voters who expressed confusion at the polling site he worked on Election Day, and asked how many others the Commission didn’t hear from or who weren’t even aware that they missed this part of the ballot.
Commissioner Townsend responded that he couldn’t imagine a voter forgetting to vote for a Presidential candidate.
President Gleason said that this was not an action item and that he presented it as “food for thought” for caution’s sake.
Public Comment. Alec Bash said that although everyone in the meeting room could have figured out the ballot, many people were voting for the first time. He said the ballot design is very important and he hoped that professionals like the Ballot Simplification Committee could take a look at ballot designs and listed several states and situations where ballot design had caused problems in past elections. Mr. Bash suggested that if the narrow column with the candidates had been on the right hand side of the ballot, voters may not have missed it. David Pilpel suggested that it might be worth a special hearing to discuss ballot designs, layouts and styles. He referred to a recent L. A. Times story about a ballot design problem in that county. Kevin Shiue said that the recent election was the first time he worked as a pollworker and that he had witnessed several voters who had missed the candidates on the ballot. He suggested that because the Insight Voting Machines reject double and no votes, perhaps it could reject ballots that have blank responses for parts of the ballot, forcing the pollworker to manually input the ballot if it was the voters intend to leave a section vacant. Mr. Shiue asked if there was any user testing of a ballot design before it is finalized.
Commissioner Phair asked if the Director could respond to the question regarding user testing of ballot designs. Director Arntz responded that there is no user review of the ballots, and that they are formatted according to the requirements of the Elections Code. He said that the ballot style in question has been used before in primaries.
(c) Discussion and possible action to approve the Minutes of the
January 16, 2008 Commission meeting.
Commissioner Meek MOVED and Commissioner Yu SECONDED approval of the minutes. The Roll Call Vote was UNANIMOUS to approve the minutes.
9. Discussion regarding items for future agendas
President Gleason said that he will have pollworker feedback on their experiences during the election on the next agenda. He asked the Commission Secretary to help to send out a press advisory, similar to the one used for the Voting Systems Forum the Commission held in the past, to get pollworkers to attend. President Gleason said that these workers, who are spending 14 and 16 hours on Election Day with ballots and voters (some of whom have 10+ years experience), would be able to supply worthwhile feedback, advice and possibly praise to the Department.
Public Comment. David Pilpel asked if the Election Plan for the Special Election would be on the agenda for the next full Elections Commission meeting.
ADJOURNMENT at 7:54 pm
Budget that was approved at this meeting