Elections Commission

2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 

City and County of San Francisco

Elections Commission

Approved: -----------------

Minutes of the Meeting at City Hall Room 408

October 21, 2009

 

 

1.            CALL TO ORDER.  President Joseph Phair called the meeting to order at 6:05 pm.

 

2.            ROLL CALL.  PRESENT.  Commissioners Rosabella Safont, Richard P. Matthews, Gerard Gleason, Joseph Phair, Arnold Townsend, Winnie Yu, Deputy City Attorney Mollie Lee, and Director of Elections John Arntz. 

 

3.            ANNOUNCEMENTS.  President Phair announced that the Board of Education has scheduled for their next meeting the appointment of Mr. Derek Turner to their currently vacant position on the San Francisco Elections Commission.  The Board of Education meeting will be at 6 pm on October 27, at 555 Franklin Street, and Elections Commissioners are invited to attend.

 

4.      Discussion and possible action to approve the minutes of the September 16, 2009 Elections Commission Meeting.  Commissioner Matthews MOVED and Commissioner Safont SECONDED this item.

 

         The Roll Call Vote was UNANIMOUS to approve the minutes.

 

5.      Director’s Report.

 

Director Arntz stated that the Department is progressing more quickly than usual in its preparations for the November 3 General Municipal Election because voter response is slower than usual.

 

Ballot Distribution – Division is bringing in temporary staff, and assigning space for equipment and personnel.  It is not likely that they will begin opening envelopes this week.  

 

Budget/Personnel – Division’s main focus currently is processing the requisitions for materials and personnel. 

 

Campaign Services – Division has begun its phone bank with a much smaller staff than in past elections due to the amount of voter interest in the election to date.    

 

Outreach – Division is producing items for inclusion on the Department’s website such as a new format for the Voter Information Pamphlet.  The Division continues conducting neighborhood presentations. 

Publications – Division has put all the voter guides (VIPs) in the mail, including the Chinese and Spanish versions, and is doing translation work for other Department Divisions.

 

Poll Locating/ADA – Division is finalizing route sheets for equipment delivery to poll locations and finding replacement polling sites when location cancellations occur.  Staff will be at Pier 48 beginning next week to organize equipment delivery.   

 

Pollworker – Division has begun training.  Inspectors training will begin next week when ballot distribution to polling places begins.    

 

Technology – Division is concentrating on database work such as registration and other bases that the Department needs prior to an election. 

 

Voter Services – Division has just begun to bring in its larger group of temporary staff.  So far, the Department has received 22,000 or 23,000 vote-by-mail ballots and 230 voters have voted at the Early Voting Counter at City Hall.

 

 

6.      NEW BUSINESS

 

(b)  Discussion and possible action to approve the Election Plan for the November 3, 2009 General Municipal Election.  (This item was taken out of order) 

 

President Phair said that he wanted these minutes to reflect that he requested that the Director provide a copy of the Draft Election Plan (EP) to the Commission prior to the meeting so there would be ample time to review it.  Unfortunately, the Director delivered the EP to the Commission Secretary last Friday the same day it was mailed and the President didn’t receive it until late yesterday.  President Phair said that he did not have sufficient time to review the plan.

 

President Phair asked the Director to refer to previous action by the Commission to deliver the draft EP for all future elections to the Commission 55 days prior to the election date.  He said that this was an action item that had been approved (formally or informally) and agreed to by the Director before President Phair was a member of the Elections Commission.  The President asked the Commission Secretary to find this agreement in the past minutes and if anything formally needs to be done to approve that agreement in the form of a resolution, the Commission will do so at its next meeting.

 

President Phair asked each Commissioner to make comments on the Election Plan and to preface his or her comments with the date the Commissioner received the mailed meeting packet with the EP, and whether that member has had an opportunity to review the entire plan.

 

Commissioner Safont apologized that she received it the night before this meeting at 10:30 pm and did not have the opportunity to review. 

 

Commissioner Matthews reported that his copy was received the day before this meeting and has not had a chance to make his review.  He asked Director Arntz, if, other than the required changes in dates and other information, there were any differences between the current draft EP and the most previous plan?  Director Arntz replied that there were no differences and asked if he could make a comment on the record.  The Director said that he emailed the draft to the Commission Secretary on Wednesday (a week before the meeting) and assumed that she had emailed it to all the Commissioners.  Director Arntz stated that the Commission President had asked that it be emailed.  However, the Director said that he had not completed the EP until last week, and assumed that if he emailed it to the Secretary she would pass it on to the Commission.  The Director apologized that he had the wrong assumption regarding what the Secretary would do with the plan. 

 

Commissioner Townsend reported that he, too, received his packet the late part of the afternoon the day before the meeting.   The Commissioner said that he did review it, and had seen all the Election Plans for all the elections over the past eight years.  Commissioner Townsend said that he did not see anything different, outstanding or alarming in this plan. 

 

Commissioner Gleason reported that he received his packet the previous afternoon.   He added that he received his packet for a meeting in September AFTER the meeting.  Commissioner Gleason said that in the five years he has been on the Commission, he typically has received his packets on Saturday.  He suggested that the Commission may want to receive all meeting information electronically in the future. 

 

President Phair asked the members to make sure that the Commission Secretary has their current email addresses so that this can be an option in the future.

 

Deputy City Attorney Lee asked to note for the record that any attachments to the agenda should be included on the Elections Commission website with the agenda. 

 

President Phair offered comments regarding what he had been able to review of the Election Plan for the November 3^rd General Municipal Election up to and including page eleven.

 

Commissioner Matthews asked Deputy City Attorney Lee if the Commission had to adopt the Election Plan prior to an election.  Deputy City Attorney Lee responded that Section 13.103.5 of the Charter specifies that one of the duties of the Commission is to approve written plans prior to each election.  She added that the Commission could call another meeting prior to the election to make that approval if it so desired. 

 

Commissioner Gleason said that on past plans there is a section at the end of the plan, but not in the current one, in which the Commission reports that it approves or does not approve of the Election Plan.

 

Commissioner Townsend MOVED and Commissioner Matthews SECONDED approval of the November 3^rd General Municipal Election Plan.

 

The Roll Call Vote was:  Safont – Yes, Gleason – Yes, Matthews-Yes, Townsend – Yes, Yu – Yes, Phair – No. 

 

The motion carried by a vote of 5 to 1.

 

 

(a)  Discussion and possible action to approve the Budget and Oversight of Public Elections Committee’s Draft Resolution on The Voter Profile.  (Committee Chair, Richard Matthews)

 

Chairperson Matthews explained that the Committee voted unanimously to bring this subject before the full Commission and explained the reasons for the resolution.  The highlights are attached in the draft memo which, if agreed to, will accompany the resolution.  Both are attached to these minutes.  Commissioner Matthews added that this is a “voter protection” issue and the Budget and Oversight of Public Elections Committee was unable to determine the cost of implementing this protection.

 

Chairperson Matthews MOVED that the Elections Commission adopt the resolution as a first step towards moving forward with the State Legislation Committee of San Francisco, Commissioner Safont SECONDED the MOTION.

 

After discussion of minor wording changes in the draft resolution, The Roll Call Vote on the changes was UNANIMOUS.

 

Chairperson Matthews asked the Commission Secretary to add the memorandum that supports the resolution to the agenda of the next Commission meeting. 

 

Commissioner Townsend said that he would like to wait until the next meeting to approve the resolution because he would like to see a statement from the Department of Elections regarding the numbers of unsigned Absentee Ballot envelopes it receives and he wants to discuss the responsibility of the voter to make sure that their ballot is counted because it is signed.

 

Commissioner Matthews reminded the Commission that when a voter under- votes or over-votes at a precinct, the machine notifies the voter of the error.  When an Absentee Ballot is turned in at the polling site, it is usually visually checked by a pollworker for signature before it is accepted, and if no signature is present, the pollworker reminds the voter to sign it.  This extra safe guard does not occur when the ballot is mailed into the Department.

 

President Phair asked Director Arntz if he wanted to comment on the difficulty and expense of implemented the proposed voter profile change and if there was a way of finding out, with out involving too much time and effort, how many times voter’s have forgotten to sign their Absentee Ballot envelopes in the last election where the turn out was high.

 

Director Arntz replied that the vote-by-mail statistics that are provided to the Commission after every election would have the information regarding how many were not signed.  Regarding expense for this resolution, the Director said he did not know, however the state is about to embark on a statewide database as required under HAVA (Help America Vote Act), the cost of which is unknown.  Thus, any changes to how counties account for voter registration information is a state issue and not only a local issue.

 

President Phair asked the Director if it was possible to identify the number of voters who did not sign their envelope, were contacted and were then able to come to the department and sign so that their vote could be counted.

 

Director Arntz answered that it should be possible by looking at the data base to see if the voter was able to be contacted or not.  He reminded the Commission that if the Department received the unsigned ballot envelope on Election Day, then it would be too late to contact the voter.

 

President Phair added that if the voter was contacted but was not available, for example, out of town, then that voter’s ballot would not be counted.  He asked the Director if he could give the Commission information regarding how big of a problem this is by the November 18, 2009 meeting.  Director Arntz agreed to see if the Department can supply the information.  President Phair thanked the Director.

 

President Phair suggested that this item be TABLED until the next Elections Commission meeting when the information regarding the number of uncounted vote-by-mail ballots would be provided by the Director and the Commission would have had time to review the very detailed memo that is to accompany the proposed resolution.

 

Commissioner Safont MOVED and Commissioner Townsend SECONDED to TABLE the item until the next Commission meeting.

 

The Roll Call Vote was UNANIMOUS to TABLE this item.

 

President Phair thanked BOPEC and Commissioner Gleason for putting together all the information regarding the need for the Resolution on the Voter Profile.

 

 

7.      Discussion and possible action regarding items for future meeting agendas and meeting dates.

 

Commissioner Yu presented the Commission with copies of her Incident Reporting Information System (IRIS) review of the May 2009 Election.  The Commissioner had given an oral report before she left on vacation.  The full report is attached to these minutes.

 

 

 

ADJOURNMENT at 7:04 pm.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

 

1.      Draft Resolution for Voter Profile

2.      Draft memorandum to accompany the above Resolution

3.      IRIS Report by Commissioner Winnie Yu

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT #1

 

 

DRAFT

RESOLUTION ON THE VOTER PROFILE

 

Whereas, vote-by-mail use in San Francisco County has increased from 25% of all ballots cast in November 1996 to 46% of all ballots cast in November 2008; and 
 
Whereas, vote-by-mail ballots that are submitted without the required voter signature on the exterior ballot return envelope cannot be processed or counted; and 
 
Whereas, if a vote-by-mail envelope arrives at the San Francisco Department of Elections without the required voter signature, the Department is contacting such voters by telephone and/or e-mail to inform them of the error and options to correct the error before the end of election day and have their ballot counted; and 
 
Whereas, if the Department of Elections does not have a telephone number or e-mail for a voter, options to notify a voter of an error with their vote-by-mail ballot are limited to slower postal communications; and 
 
Whereas, California voter registration forms state that providing telephone number or

e-mail information is optional; and 
 
Whereas, a voter's telephone number and e-mail information, when provided, becomes part of the voter's public profile; and 
 
Whereas, some voters choose not to provide the optional public profile information because such information is posted outside of polling places on election day and this voter profile information also becomes available to political campaigns and commercial list brokers, often resulting in unsolicited and unwanted telephone calls, which often cause registrants not to provide their phone number when registering; and 
 
Whereas, if a voter does provide telephone and e-mail contact information, the Department of Elections is better able to assist the voter by contacting the voter in a timely fashion should there be an error that may prevent their ballot from being counted, 

 

Therefore, be it resolved,

 

That the Elections Commission of the City and County of San Francisco requests that the State of California State Legislature Committee of San Francisco urge that the California Secretary of State and the California State Legislature consider changes and modifications to the California Elections Code which would allow counties to accept a voter’s telephone number and e-mail on voter registration forms and update requests, with the enhanced option allowing a voter to provide telephone number and e-mail information for the restricted and exclusive use by a county’s Department of Elections for notifications regarding issues directly involving a voter’s registration status, a voter’s ability to cast a ballot, and issues involving the ability to process and count a voter’s ballot.

 

Done this _____day of October 2009                                           _____________________________________

                                                                                 Joseph B. Phair, President, San Francisco Elections Commission

I so attest: ­­­­­­­­­­­

 

____________________________

 

Shirley Rodriques, Secretary, San Francisco Elections Commission

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT #2

 

 

 

DRAFT MEMORANDUM

 

TO:                  San Francisco’s State Legislative Committee

FROM:           The Elections Commission of the City & County of San Francisco

DATE:                        October XX, 2009

RE:                 Seeking Changes to Cal. Election Code Re Voter Profile Information

 

 

Introduction: An Important Voter Protection Is At Stake

 

As the use of the vote-by-mail ballot has drastically increased in the past decade, an unfortunate problem has risen along with that increased usage: occasional errors or omissions by voters on the return envelope—mistakes that would prohibit their ballot from being counted if not corrected before the close of Election Day. A typical error of this sort is failure by the voter to sign the envelope as instructed.

 

It is sad that such a simple oversight would prevent someone’s ballot being counted, especially as that person went to the trouble to fill out a ballot and return it. Commendably, the San Francisco Department of Elections does a conscientious job of processing the incoming vote-by-mail ballots well before election day, and then attempts to contact every voter whose envelope had some problem so that the voter can take steps to correct the problem and have his or her ballot counted.  Usually, that close to Election Day, a phone call or an email is the only method fast enough to alert the voter to correct the problem by the end of Election Day. The Department accesses the voter’s registration information (“profile information”) and if a phone number or email address is provided, the voter is contacted. When this information has been provided by the voter, these contacts are generally successful in curing the problems in a timely fashion.

 

However, voters often do not provide phone numbers or email addresses – a fact which was less significant before vote-by-mail ballots were so commonly used. A significant part of the reason for some voters’ choosing not to provide this information is they do not wish to be contacted by campaigns; nor by commercial enterprises or telemarketers who might come by this information. So by not providing the immediate contact information, voters think they are minimizing chances to be contacted by entities they do not wish to contact them, but are also unknowingly discarding perhaps the only safeguard they might need someday to have their ballot counted.

 

Let us be clear: voters face a no-win choice between minimizing unwanted calls or emails from other entities and providing the very piece of information that they might need someday to protect their vote.

 

The California Elections Code as currently written requires that if a voter provides the information, then it must appear in the voter profile; it is public information. Therefore, the Elections Commission of San Francisco recommends that the state code be changed to permit a “for administrative use only” designation for the voter to choose if he or she wishes to do so, which would be expected to result in more voters’ choosing to provide phone or email information—a necessary safeguard in the era of vote-by-mail balloting.

 

 

Background

The primary task for elections administrators is to conduct free and fair elections.  A major focus is to ensure counting every single ballot cast during an election.  During any election, a number of ballots are delivered to the Department of Elections or cast at polls on Election Day, which present administrative challenges because they may not have properly executed documentation as required by California Elections Code. 

 

For example, voted vote-by-mail ballots must be returned to the Department of Elections before the close of Election Day in a specially designed return envelope, sealed and bearing the voters original signature on the exterior.  Voted vote-by mail ballots which do not have the required voter’s signature cannot be processed and cannot be counted.

 

The goal of counting every single ballot requires the Department of Elections to research and determine any remedy that could allow a ballot to processed and counted. This goal requires removing any ambiguity before determining that a submitted voted ballot does not comply with legal requirements and therefore cannot be processed and counted.

                                          

Nowhere is the issue of ambiguous ballots more notable than in recent elections where final vote totals were so close that just a few votes separate winning and losing.  Most of these infamous elections involved costly and contentious administrative and legal challenges where the parties involved focused on a few ballots, and in some cases argued over individual ballots. See the table below:

 

Recent Notable Close Elections

Election	Difference in votes when challenge ended
Minnesota US Senate 2008	312
Vallejo California Mayor 2007	3
Washington State Governor 2004	129
US President (Florida) 2000	537

 

Proper elections administration – and voter protection –  requires having all the tools necessary to ensure the fewest number of ambiguous ballots at the end of vote counting.

 

 

Vote-By-Mail Ballots

 

Over the past few years the use of vote-by-mail ballots has dramatically increased in the City & County of San Francisco.

 

 

Increase in ballots returned as Vote-By-Mail in San Francisco County

General Election Date	% Vote-by-Mail
11/04/08	46%
11/07/06	43%
11/02/04	37%
11/05/02	29%
11/07/00	26%
11/03/98	27%
11/05/96	25%

 

The California Elections Code requires that voted vote-by-mail ballots must be returned to the Department of Elections in a specially designed return envelope, sealed and bearing the voters original signature on the exterior.  Voted vote-by mail ballots which do not have the required voter’s signature cannot be processed and cannot be counted:

 

 

“Upon receipt of the vote by mail ballot the elections official shall compare the signature on the envelope with that appearing on the affidavit of registration and, if they compare, deposit the ballot, still in the identification envelope, in a ballot container in his or her office. A variation of the signature caused by the substitution of initials for the first or middle name, or both, shall not invalidate the ballot. If the ballot is rejected because the signatures do not compare, the envelope shall not be opened and the ballot shall not be counted. The cause of the rejection shall be written on the face of the identification envelope.” (Cal. Elec. Code sec. 3019, emphasis added.)

 

 

Voter Telephone Number and Email Information

 
The California Voter Registration form requires voters to provide certain personal information (birth date, home address, California ID number or last four digits of one’s Social Security Number); however, telephone number (Section 13 of the voter registration form) and e-mail address (Section 12) are specifically noted as “optional.” Indeed, this complies with Section 2150 of the Elections Code:

 

“(a) The affidavit of registration shall show:

…

(3) The affiant's place of residence, residence telephone number, if furnished, and e-mail address, if furnished. No person shall be denied the right to register because of his or her failure to furnish a telephone number or e-mail address, and shall be so advised on the voter registration card.”

 

An individual voter's information becomes known as a “voter's profile.”

 

[Image of voter registration form]

 

 

Need for the Department of Elections to Contact Voters by Telephone or Email

There are numerous scenarios in which the Department of Elections would need to contact a voter, not the least of which is to let a voter know that he or she submitted a vote-by-mail ballot which cannot be processed and counted because the return envelope is missing the required voter's signature. 
 
Currently, the Department of Elections contacts voters who have forgotten to sign the envelope of a returned vote-by-mail ballot to inform them of their options to have an otherwise valid ballot counted. This contact can be made by telephone if the voter provided a telephone number when registering to vote.

 

There is a possible second opportunity to collect this information from the voter: A voter's telephone number might also supply a telephone number when submitting a request (application) for a vote-by-mail ballot before an election—again, the telephone number is optional on this application, too. However, most vote-by-mail ballots are issued using voter profiles that designate the voter opted to permanently receive vote-by-mail ballots – that is, on the voter’s registration form –  therefore no further application is required, and this second opportunity to collect contact information doesn’t exist.

 

 If there is no telephone number for the voter in their profile, the Department of Elections can attempt to contact the voter by mail (postal delivery). In the case of encountering a vote-by-mail ballot without a signature during processing after the Friday prior to an election, it is unlikely the Department of Elections would be able to contact a voter by mail to inform them that the submitted ballot cannot be processed and inform the voter of options to cast a valid ballot, and to do so in sufficient time to cure the error. 

 

 

Public Availability of Voter Profile Information

 

An individual voter’s information, known as a ‘voter's profile,” becomes part of the county's complete database of all voters’ profiles is the master “voter index.” California Elections Code allows access to voter indexes by various individuals and organizations outside of the Department of Elections. Certain personal information is specifically withheld from disclosure in the voter index (such as voter’s Social Security Number or scans of a voter’s signature). Additionally, whole voter profiles are withheld for individuals identified as “at risk” if any disclosure of their location is made. 
 
Therefore, if a voter provides the optional telephone number and/or e-mail address, then that information become parts of the publicly available voter profile. 
 
Voter profile lists for each precinct are publicly posted outside of polling places each election. Further, complete Master Voter data files are provided to and made available to certain qualifying individuals and organizations.  These are broadly described in California Elections Code sections 2184 and 2185:

 

“2184.  Upon demand of any Member of the Legislature, of Congress, or

any candidate who is to be voted for in the county, in a city

therein, or in a political subdivision of either, or upon written

demand of his or her campaign committee, of any committee for or

against any proposed ballot measure, or of any committee for or

against any referendum or initiative measure for which legal

publication has been made, the county elections official shall

furnish to the Member of the Legislature, of Congress, or to either

the candidate or his or her campaign committee or to the ballot

measure committee no more than two copies of the printed indexes of

the registration for the primary and general elections in which the

Member of the Legislature or Congress may participate as a candidate,

or for the election in which the candidate will participate, or the

ballot measure will be voted upon, at a charge of fifty cents ($0.50)

per thousand names.  All moneys collected shall be deposited in the

county treasury to the credit of the general fund.

 

 

“2185.  Upon written demand of the chair or vice chair of a party

state central committee or of the chair of a party county central

committee, the county elections official shall furnish to each

committee, without charge therefor, the index of registration for the

primary and general elections, for any special election at which a

partisan office is to be filled, or for any statewide special

election.”

 

 

 
The California Elections code goes on to specify the restrictions on who can have access to voter profile information: 

2194.  (a) The voter registration card information identified in

subdivision (a) of Section 6254.4 of the Government Code:

 

   (1) Shall be confidential and shall not appear on any computer

terminal, list, affidavit, duplicate affidavit, or other medium

routinely available to the public at the county elections official's

office.

 

   (2) Shall not be used for any personal, private, or commercial

purpose, including, but not limited to:

   (A) The harassment of any voter or voter's household.

   (B) The advertising, solicitation, sale, or marketing of products

or services to any voter or voter's household.

   (C) Reproduction in print, broadcast visual or audio, or display

on the Internet or any computer terminal unless pursuant to paragraph (3).

 

   (3) Shall be provided with respect to any voter, subject to the

provisions of Sections 2166.5, 2166.7, and 2188, to any candidate for

federal, state, or local office, to any committee for or against any

initiative or referendum measure for which legal publication is

made, and to any person for election, scholarly, journalistic, or

political purposes, or for governmental purposes, as determined by

the Secretary of State.

 

(Emphasis added.)

 

The opportunity for misuse of the voter profile information that is provided by the permission in the last subsection is obvious (“Shall be provided … to any person for election, scholarly, journalistic, or political purposes[.]).[1] It is fair to say that the incentive for voters to withhold the optional telephone numbers or email is great considering the wide access to this information by others besides a county’s elections office. 

 

Indeed, some of the information from voter profiles and county master voter files is obtained by commercial data list brokers.  Data list brokers combine information on individual voters and their voting record as it pertains to frequency of voting at precincts on Election Day and/or returning voted vote-by-mail ballots to be counted.  This voting record data is often merged with additional data from other sources such as banking and mortgage records, credit data, student/school records, and other public records such as hunting licenses, property deeds, and marriage licenses.  These commercial list brokers are able to create specific and enhanced versions of voter profiles which are sold to campaigns and any organization with interests in elections and political matters.

 

 

A Solution: Create an Optional “For Administrative Use Only” Category

 A straightforward solution would be to create a third category of information in the California Elections Code in addition to “public” and “confidential”—the “provided for administrative use only” category which would give the voter the option of providing a telephone or email address solely for the use of elections departments, while keeping the option of providing telephone or email addresses for public use.

 

In other words, on the voter registration form (or applications for such things as vote-by-mail ballots), the voter would face this choice:

1. Provide a telephone number and/or email address for elections administrative use only, which would be masked from the public profile; OR
2. Provide a telephone number and/or email address which would become part of the public profile, as now; OR
3. Not provide a telephone number or email address.

 

This would require some minor modifications to the voter registration form, and it would be some expense to each county’s registrar of elections to change their computer files to mask certain fields from public view. The size of this investment is not currently known to this Commission.

 

However, by offering this option to voters, we expect that more would provide contact information for use by county elections offices, which would provide a crucial safeguard for voters’ ballots and might just be the difference between that person’s ballot being counted or not. 

 

 

 

---

 

 

ATTACHMENT #3

 

 

IRIS REPORT: MAY 19, 2009 STATEWIDE SPECIAL ELECTION

POLLWORKER OR RECURRING ISSUES

By Winnie Yu

 

 

The IRIS Report (phone log of precinct calls to the Election Day support center) for the May 19, 2009 Statewide Special Election was 22 pages in total. Below is a review of the second half of the IRIS Report pages 12 to 22, focusing on pollworker patterns, or recurring issues:

 

 

I.   POLLWORKERS:

 

(1)       Twenty (20) calls in the A.M., versus seven (7) calls in the P.M.

 

(2)       55 precincts called Election Day support center, per the second half    of IRIS            Report.

 

            (i) 22 precincts called regarding Clerks:

                        (a)       7 calls regarding Clerks unable to follow protocol,                                                   procedures, or instructions per Pollworker Manual and Clerk                                                            Training.       

 

                        (b)       15 calls regarding understaffed precincts.

 

                        (c)        1 Clerk replaced because the Clerk was unable to follow                                                       protocol, procedures, or instructions per Pollworker Manual                                                   and Clerk Training.

 

(ii)   5 precincts called regarding Inspectors:

 

            (a)       2 calls regarding Inspectors unable to follow protocol,                                                             procedures, or instructions per Pollworker Manual and                                               Inspector training.

 

                         (c)       3 Inspectors replaced because they were unable to follow                                                     protocol, procedures, or instructions per Pollworker Manual                                                   and Inspector Training.

 

                        (d)       3 calls regarding understaffed precincts.

 

II.   RECURRING ISSUES:

 

                        (1) 9 calls regarding Polling Place locked at 6:00 A.M.

                        (2) 15 calls regarding Edge technical problems.

                        (3) 7 calls regarding Insight technical problems.