Elections Commission
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 City and County of San Francisco
Elections Commission
Approved: June 6, 2007
Minutes of the Meeting at City Hall Room 408
May 16, 2007
- 1.CALL TO ORDER. President Jennifer Meek called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
- 2.ROLL CALL. PRESENT: Commissioners Gerard Gleason, Tajel Shah, Richard P. Matthews, Winnie Yu, Deputy City Attorney Jon Givner, and Director of Elections John Arntz. Commissioners Arnold Townsend and Victor Hwang arrived after the Roll Call.
President Meek announced that the Commission Secretary is investigating space available for the Commission’s Office outside City Hall.
4. Director’s Report.
Ballot Distribution: The Division’s manager is on leave after the birth of his daughter for several months. One member of the Division is working on DoE payroll, and another staff person is working on DoE’s purchasing due to the Department’s overall low staffing.
Budget/Personnel: The Supplemental Appropriation Budget has moved from the Board of Supervisors to the Budget Analyst’s office. The report is due this week, and the budget goes to the Board’s Committee calendar next Wednesday.
Campaign Services: There is a move to recall Supervisor Jake McGoldrick (District One). Notice has been given to the Supervisor, he has filed his reply and the Division is in the process of examining the petition.
Outreach: Interviews for two Outreach staff will begin on Friday. There are sixteen candidates for these positions.
Update on securing a voting system for 2007-2008: The Secretary of State (SoS) denied Elections Systems and Software’s (ES&S) request for an administrative extension. There is now a list of criteria for the “top to bottom review” for every system that is certified for use in California elections. This review is to ensure that the systems voters use are secure, reliable, accessible and accurate. The SoS sent a letter to ES&S stating that the company could re-submit its application for an extension if its “top to bottom review” is successful. ES&S has currently pulled the system that San Francisco uses from this review because it says it has completed federal certification for the AutoMark and the Unity (which is the software that runs the voting system). When a company has an upgrade or a change to its voting equipment, it must be recertified. The Director said that ES&S will submit the Eagle Machine for certification review. There has been no change to the Eagle, so this certification is a unique situation. The SoS has said that all voting equipment has to meet the 2002 Federal Voting System standards. The Director said that the Eagle and 4-C system that San Francisco uses does not meet those standards, and cannot be modified to do so. ES&S must submit an application before the SoS will make any determination. Director Arntz stated that he has tried to contact ES&S but has not received a response to his calls.
There is a “real possibility” that the DoE will have to do a hand count in November.
Commissioner Matthews asked the Director how could the Department use a machine count. Director Arntz said there are a lot of scenarios but until the SoS receives the ES&S application, it is only conjecture. Some suggestions from Director Arntz included: the ballot count happen at City Hall; or there could be a new ES&S system; or that the Sequoia Systems contract could be completed.
Commissioner Matthews asked the Director if it was likely that the SoS would require new criteria, such as open source, for elections before November 2007. Director Arntz replied that the statement from the SoS regarding its “top to bottom review” says that intellectual property is protected by law and that the SoS will not go beyond state law in providing access and disclosure of system software.
Commissioner Hwang said that the Los Angeles response to the SoS’s statement regarding the “top to bottom review” made reference that that City’s equipment, in a previous election, was not certified by the SoS and they went forward with an election without the certification. The Commissioner asked what would be the consequence if San Francisco did the same. Director Artnz responded that he would not run equipment that was not certified.
Commissioner Gleason asked if the SoS was only concerned with the Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) ballot counting, and not the Eagle. Director Arntz replied that with the new standards for all California voting systems by the SoS, the Eagle and RCV would need to be certified – that is, the entire system. Commissioner Gleason asked the Director if other counties are using the Eagle and 4-C. The Director responded that San Francisco is the only county using this equipment.
Commissioner Shah asked the Director what the Commission could do to help. Director Arntz answered that the Commission could communicate to the Secretary of State’s Office that the Commission supports a “top to bottom review”, stronger standards for voting systems and that at the same time there is concern about a hand count, and that whatever San Francisco can do procedurally and operationally to perhaps use the Eagles or the 4-C’s, to make sure that the ballots are marked in the manner that the machines can read would be helpful.
Commissioner Townsend stated that whatever the City does with ES&S, the outcome would be the same as it is now, because that vendor is unresponsive. The Commissioner asked the Director if he has gotten any return phone calls from ES&S. The Director responded that he had not.
Commissioner Gleason said that five years ago, during the one percent audit, the ballots balanced on a hand count with the machine tabulation; and that two years ago the RCV tabulation showed one anomaly to the data sets and it was tracked to its cause. He said that these instances should be in the Department’s plea to the SoS that the machines actually do work. A hand count alone, can be susceptible to human error.
President Meek said that the letter from the SoS seems to point to non-certification for the ES&S equipment. She asked Director Arntz if using Sequoia was still an option. Director Arntz responded that it was. President Meek asked the Director if he could come up with a list of options for the Commission and the Board of Supervisors.
Update regarding the cost for the ballot hand count for the November 2006 election:
Director Arntz said that in 2003, ES&S had not developed its system for RCV. The DoE developed its hand count process that was certified by the SoS and the numbers and costs he prepared in the handout for this meeting is based on that information.
Commissioner Hwang asked the Director what ES&S was seeking regarding recertification. Director Arntz said that ES&S has pulled everything from the “top to bottom review”, but the company is going for recertification of their newer system and are attaching the Eagle and 4-C to that application. Commissioner Hwang then reminded the Director that the Eagle and 4-C do not meet the 2002 standards. Director Arntz agreed and said that if there is a “strict” application of the standards to the Eagle and 4-C, they will not pass the certification review. Commissioner Hwang asked if it was possible that the contract with ES&S be “bumped up to their newer system?” Director Arntz replied in the negative. The Director said that the City has an extension of an existing contract and it does not cover the newer system, and he reminded the Commission that ES&S’s new system does not have RCV.
Director Arntz said that he has been trying to get an answer from the SoS to the following question: If there’s nothing certified for RCV, can the City at least use the machines to get the first choice votes and report that vote? However, the SoS will not consider this question until it receives an application.
Update regarding ES&S review of the breakdowns in equipment used in the November 2006 election: Director Arntz said that he has provided the incidents reports from the June and November 2006 elections for the AutoMark and Eagle machines. He said that there were many slow-downs on the 4-Cs when they were counting the absentee votes. The problems were not just that the machines were old and breaking down. The Director put the blame on the system that required ongoing repairs. The November 2004 election was a four-card ballot for the districts that had Supervisor contests and then a three-card ballot for the rest of the City – this was the highest voter turnout since 1952 in San Francisco. During that election, the DoE had a 27% technician response rate for problems with the equipment. The November 2006 election had a 33% technician response rate. This seems to show that the equipment is wearing down.
Public Comment. David Pilpel said that the DoE was still doing a good job under increasingly adverse circumstances. He said one of the options the DoE might consider is to declare a state of emergency to be able to use portions of the Sequoia System if they are more likely to be certified, at least for those portions of the system that would be eligible for a machine count. Mr. Pilpel said that maybe there could be another solution for the November 2008 election, but the November 2007 and the February 2008 elections were too close together to change systems. Sasha Ielmorini said that the SoS letter does not say that she will not certify, but that she would not administratively recertify the system and that this gives her hope. Additionally, the speaker said that she has placed calls to ES&S and received return calls within 24 hours. Brent Turner said that San Francisco is setting the precedent for the United States for open source and saying “no” to Sequoia. Jennifer Hammond said she wanted to remind the Commission that the circumstance of the Sequoia purchase hasn’t changed, it was an obsolete system. Carol Bella said that in March of 2006 Sequoia was not yet RCV certified, and that she was no fan of ES&S either. She added that this year Sequoia was asked to insert a small clause in its contract supporting open source and the company would not do it. Tim Mayer said that the worst case scenario is that the City count the ballots by hand.
- 4.Deputy City Attorney’s Report. Deputy City Attorney Jon Givner said he had no new information to report.
5. OLD BUSINESS
- Discussion and possible action to approve a Commission general policy statement regarding transparency in voting systems technologies as well as providing voting systems security. Commissioner Hwang presented his new draft to the policy which contained changes suggested by the City Attorney’s office. Commissioner Shah MOVED and Commissioner Hwang SECONDED this item. Commissioner Matthews MOVED to amend the policy by deleting the final paragraph that commends the DoE for doing something that it has not yet done. Commissioner Gleason SECONDED the amendment. Commissioner Hwang said that he had no objection to the amendment.
The Roll Call Vote on the amendment was UNANIMOUS to approve it.
Commissioner Matthew said that he was not convinced that the policy was a state question, and not a county policy issue. Commissioner Hwang said that each county selects its own election system hardware.
Commissioner Townsend said that he doesn’t see how having codes on line will ultimately work for the voters.
Commissioner Yu said that she feels that as technology becomes more pervasive, these questions about sharing information and privacy issues will come up as well as how the government is managing it all.
Commissioner Matthews said where voting equipment exists in places where the voter marks the ballot and that ballot is counted in the same machine there is a “black box problem.” This is not what happens in San Francisco. In our City, there is a unit, either your hand or the AutoMark, that marks a paper ballot and then a second unit counts it and then there’s the one percent manual tally. At that manual tally, the vote comes out to match the tally exactly. This proves that the machines are counting our ballots correctly. The Commissioner said that if people want to increase the manual tally from one percent to three percent or five percent, we can have that discussion. But in terms of trying to avert a problem that doesn’t really exist – that is what open source does.
Commissioner Hwang disagreed and said that the City does have a “black box problem”, not a problem necessarily with fraud, however although we have an open system where people can observe the process, at the end of the day it is a black box – we put the ballot in and we don’t know what happens in that box.
Public Comment. The following speakers were in support of this policy: Sasha Ielmorini, Brent Turner, Roger Donaldson, Tim Mayer. David Pilpel suggested a couple of typographical corrections to the policy, and said he was most concerned about the word “shall” in the last paragraph and that use of that word may tread on the Commission’s power vs. the Director’s power. He added that the meaning of this policy has different interpretations.
The Roll Call Vote was: Matthews – No; Gleason – Yes; Shah – Yes; Townsend – Yes; Hwang – Yes; Yu – Yes; Meek – Yes. The item CARRIED with a vote of 6 to 1.
- Discussion of topics and items for the Elections Commission Retreat to be held on June 20, 2007. President Meek asked the Commissioners to let her know of any topics not listed on the draft Retreat Agenda. Commissioner Gleason said that he has given Deputy City Attorney some materials to review for inclusion on the agenda. Director Arntz said that he would like the Commissioners to take a tour of the Department during the Retreat. Commissioner Shah asked that there be discussion under “Overview of Election Day Processes” of what roles the Commissioners can play. President Meek said that this topic could also be discussed under “Roles and Responsibilities”.
Public Comment. David Pilpel suggested that the Commission get a clear description of what the Commission can and cannot do and where the line of powers and duties lie, because it comes up often in meetings.
10. NEW BUSINESS
- Discussion and possible action to approve the Elections Commission minutes of the April 18, 2007 meeting. Commissioner Matthews MOVED and Commissioner Townsend SECONDED this item. A Roll Call Vote was UNANIMOUS to approve the minutes.
- Discussion and possible action to send a letter to the Secretary of State supporting the certification process. Commissioner Shah said that the situation has changed since the letter was first proposed and the draft was written. Commissioner Gleason said that a correction should be made to use the wording “administrative review” or recertification, and that the letter should explain that the Department is caught between “a rock and a hard place.” Commissioner Townsend said that he was in favor of the letter but that he objected to the fact that the Commission now has to write a letter to the SoS to ask that it push through something that ES&S should have accomplished itself, and that we are asking to be treated differently from other counties. President Meek added that the letter needs to cover not just the RCV system, but the entire system. Commissioner Shah asked that the letter be tabled until the results of the “top to bottom review” are known.
Commissioner Matthews MOVED and Commissioner Gleason SECONDED that the Commission President be authorized to make a call to the Secretary of State on behalf of the Commission to support the certification process and to express its concerns about not having a system and the options that are available.
A Roll Call Vote was: Gleason – Yes; Matthews – Yes; Shah – Yes; Townsend – No; Hwang – Yes; Yu – Yes; Meek – Yes. Item CARRIED with a vote of 6 to 1.
11. Discussion regarding items for future agendas. President Meek reminded the Commission that the Director’s term of office will end May 2008 and suggested a Closed Session meeting during July to discuss the process. Commissioner Townsend said that he would like to propose to reaffirm the Director immediately and not wait until July.
ADJOURNMENT at 9:17 pm.
ADDENDUM
(Statements meeting attendees asked to have attached to these minutes):
From Brent Turner -
Mr. Turner said the commission is doing a great job and that he believes this is a matter of civil rights and election integrity in that the county is avoiding a trap set in motion by incarcerated politician Bob Ney through the “ HAVA Trap “. Mr. Turner stated the Board of Supervisors was proper in standing strong against Sequoia as the company refuses to disclose their source code after being asked to abide at least three times. Mr. Turner continued to say he looks forward to Secretary of State Bowen’s top to bottom review and that he thinks all the machines might fail the review. Mr. Turner continued that it is fiscally sound for the county to have stayed in place with E S & S- - . Mr. Turner said a hand count is preferable to a possibly dirty machine count and that open source is the best solution. Mr. Turner noted the Department of Defense and the Air Force are impressed with their new open source systems.
Mr. Turner said the Secretary of State will eventually consider open source systems as the current certification process is confirmed as broken. Mr. Turner thanked the commission for performing great patriotic duty.
From Carol Bella – (in addition to her comments on page four of these minutes)
To me what this illustrates is the absolute hold these voting machine companies have on our electoral process. We are at their mercy. That is the problem here. How is Sequoia’s customer service any better here? I am glad we are standing up in SF and not buyin into this HAVA trap.