February 11th, 2005 ERC DRAFT Minutes

DRAFT

MINUTES OF MEETING OF February 11, 2005

BOULDER COUNTY ELECTION REVIEW COMMITTEE

1. Call to Order, Roll Call

The meeting of the Boulder County Election Review Committee was held on February 11, 2005, at 1:00 p.m. in the Boulder County Commissioners’ Hearing Room. The meeting was called to order by Richard Lyons, Chairman, at 1:12 p.m.

The meeting was attended, at roll call, by the following Committee Members: Richard Lyons, Richard Harris, Hillary Hall, David Leeds and Michael Taylor. Also present were Don Hayden and Neal McBurnett, invited for a presentation, Patty Stahl and Tim Hansard of the County Clerk’s Staff, and members of the public.

Linda Flack was excused from the meeting. Jay Houston arrived at 1:18 Tom Davidson arrived at 1:22 Paul Tiger arrived at 1:25 Drew Durham arrived at 1:35 Linda Salas arrived at 1:5 0

2. Approval of Minutes

Corrections to the minutes of the February 4 meeting were recorded and unanimously approved in a motion by Mr. Harris and seconded by Mr. Taylor.

3. Public Comment

Joe Pezzillo, quoted the charge to the Election Review Committee pointing out, his interpretation, that it is within the purview of the Committee to recommend an alternate election system. He stated that he and others had met with Commissioner Tom Mayer about the issue and were told that, if he had known counting would be delayed so long, he, Commissioner Mayer, would not have voted to approve the Hart System.

Greg Lafave informed the Committee that he had worked, with the election staff, on the election count process. He has a long list of comments he would like to share with the Committee, but it would take longer than the 3 minutes allowed in public comment. The Chairman, Mr. Lyons, encouraged him to attend one of the meetings scheduled for public input, and they would try to hear his concerns.

Neal McBurnett suggested that it might be beneficial for the Committee to encourage members of the public to submit written statements.

4. Presentation by Mr. Don Hayden re: Logic and Accuracy Testing

Mr. Hayden, with a colleague, represented the democratic party in performing the state-required testing of the voting system, for logic and accuracy. Each political party and jurisdiction implements a test on at least 25 test ballots that are issued to them by the election staff. Each entity that has a contest on the ballot is a jurisdiction. 222 ballots were tested in the process. The test ballots were printed separately for the purpose of this test.

Two memorandums, regarding the testing, were sent to members of the Committee: Boulder County Logic and Accuracy Test of the Hart InterCivic Ballot Counting System, General Election, Nov. 2, 2004 (EXHIBIT 18) and Toward a More Effective and Efficient Boulder County LAT (EXHIBIT 19)

Mr. Hayden made his presentation using an overhead projector to show graphics of the testing process. Mr. McBurnett assisted with the presentation.

The electronic equipment must be tested three times: on the day before the election, just prior to election and at the conclusion of the counting. The testers secretly vote the test ballots, purposely damaging some and retaining a record of the votes. They observe tabulation of these ballots and compare the tabulation with the retained record of test votes.

Resolution teams, made up of one person from each political party, review the rejected ballots to determine the intent of the voter. Team members are trained by staff of the election office.

Mr.Hayden stated that a large amount of time, 2 or 3 hours, was lost due to disagreements over the purpose and scope of the LAT. An LAT Test Specification is needed to eliminate confusion and controversy. Consistency in scoring is needed between the machine and resolution team.

He was surprised by the democrats’ inaccuracy of the hand count. The machine counts the complex ballots more accurately than humans are able to. Without a per-ballot report, it is difficult to determine how each ballot is counted. Better reporting capabilities are needed.

Mr. Hayden believes that a more effective and efficient LAT is needed and is possible to achieve. He proposes that ‘The purpose of the LAT test is to confirm that the vote counting system is ready and that it will accurately count votes. The test is limited in scope to the vote-counting hardware, its associated application software and the Election Database. The surround system is not considered a part of the test.”

Mr. Hayden outlined the expectations of time required for scanning and resolution in a “best case” scenario: Scan & process: a 200 to 300 ballot batch takes 20 minutes. With 8 scanning stations, about 5k ballots can be processed per hour. Resolving: 200 to 300 ballots usually has about 15 ballots rejected, requiring 5 minutes each to resolve. 8 resolving stations, about 16 ballots resolved per hour. Calendar Expectations: LAT Test1, Oct. 25 - L2 Nov. 2 – L3 complete Nov. 17

In reality, it took 10 hours to go through the 25 ballot test set, due in part to misunderstanding of the purpose of LAT testing and confusion about the process. On election Day 100k ballots required 20 hours to scan and 6 hours to resolve.

Observations Made by the LAT Team:

A Process Description is needed before the process starts.

Party representatives need to provide a single set of volunteers who are committed

to working for the duration of the counting process. Vote counting was often delayed waiting for operators or for members of a specific party to appear.

A volunteer coordinator should be hired to manage the vital involvement of private citizens representing their political parties.

Scanners require skilled and highly trained operators. They should be trained and committed to remain for the duration of the process when voting begins.

The chaotic environment at voting headquarters made ballot security difficult.

Large technology changes should be made during lightly voted elections.

Mr. Hayden reported that he was asked to recruit 50 volunteer representatives of the democratic party to assist with various aspects of the election process, including scanner operators and resolution team. Most volunteers could offer limited time because of other obligations. Resolution could proceed only if both major parties were represented. This was a major cause of the delay in counting.

When questioned whether additional scanners could speed up the process, Mr. Hayden seemed doubtful. “The more people you have involved, the more potential problems.”

5. Presentation by Ms. Linda Salas and staff regarding election process, staffing, training, procedures, etc.

Ms. Hall, with input from others, developed a list of questions regarding management of the election however the document was not received in the election office before this meeting. The questions were given to Ms. Salas and she proceeded to address them.

Mr. Taylor suggested that the Committee request a written response to the questions because of the lengthy time required to address them in public meetings. It was decided to begin to address them today and request written response on those not covered.

Ms. Sales reported that there are 51/2 members on the election staff, and gave their names with responsibilities. A large temporary staff is added to handle the election. They started in May, and began working 7 days a week in July. All staff worked with temps.

Paper work was multiplied when the county joined PERA because each temp. employee must be added to the county payroll system, and pension is deducted from their salary. Most want to recover those funds from PERA, and the Clerk’s staff must handle the request.

A staff meeting was held each morning to make decisions and to write memos regarding activities for all employees. The training manual had to be revised repeatedly because of changes in the laws, made by the state. Changes in procedures are still being made because of changes coming down from the state.

There were 20,000 new registrations to be entered into the system, and 30,000 changes of address, etc. Implementation of voter registration was delayed for two months.

As it became clear that the process was taking more time than expected, a decision was made to begin counting the early votes and absentee ballots before election day. As ballots for counting became backlogged, a decision was made to work throughout the night.

Ms. Sales described the process for counting ballots: 20 or 30 ballots would be scanned and damaged ballots indicated. Damaged ballots were removed and given to a resolution team. When the ballots were resolved the batch would be recorded and sent to the electronic Mobile Ballot Box (MBB) from there they were sent for tally. The procedure was determined after the Primary Election. A Kodak maintenance person was on site at all times to handle problems with scanners.

The process could be delayed if a trained scanner operator was not available. It could also be delayed if an appropriate resolution team was not available. Another delay in reporting was due to the extensive time required to resolve provisional ballots. It could take half an hour to determine the eligibility of a voter.

Mr. Lyons pointed out that Mr. McClure and Mr. Hayden had estimated, before election day, that a report of Boulder County Election results would be ready by Wednesday evening and asked if Ms. Sales had agreed with that estimate. She answered that she did agree. He remarked that in the old paper ballot system, ballot counting could be started during election day, and asked it that was possible with the new system. With this system counting cannot be started until the poles close.

Ms. Sales reported that the lack of appropriate space for election functions made a huge impact on the operation. The Houston Room was packed with voters and volunteers engaged in multiple functions. The most serious problems causing delay in reporting were lack of space and lack of staff.

Mr. Leeds said he noticed staff unlocking ballot boxes and he suggested that, in the future, a two party team should unlock the boxes. There was also concern that ballot boxes were held in the hall outside the Houston Room. Ms. Sales assured the Committee that they were well guarded at all times. The space was not sufficient to accommodate the operation.

Mr. Davidson asked how much square footage of space would be needed. Ms. Sales could not answer, but offered to get back to the Committee with an estimate. Vote Centers were discussed as a way to address space problems. They could be placed in convenient locations and could accommodate early voting.

Ms. Sales pointed out the inefficiency of using volunteer staff. Some people could commit only short blocks of time and they all required training. Some of the well-trained volunteers had to leave before counting was complete. Paying judges more would probably increase interest in that position. Using paid staff instead of volunteers would increase their commitment. Operators, particularly, should be well trained and paid for their involvement.

In discussion, Mr. Durham stated that he will send a copy of state regulations regarding voter intent.

Mr. Harris requested the use of 1 or 2 good and 1 or 2 damaged ballots for measuring. Ms. Stahl will get them to him. Mr. Harris also asked permission for Committee members to observe City Elections.

Mr. Lyon asked Ms. Salas and staff to return on March 11 for further discussion of project management, and suggested that they respond to the remaining questions in writing.

6. Other business, including review of previously submitted documents, scheduling of public comments ,discussion of report format, and committee members’ comments

Review of future meeting schedule: Meetings for public comment, 6:30 – 9:30 February 17, Commissioners’ Hearing Room and 6:30 – 9:30, March 3, location, in Longmont, to be announced. Regular meeting of Committee on February 25, Commissioners’ Conference Room March 11 with Ms. Salas and staff in the Houston Room

Mr. Lyons ask to be excused from the meeting on February 25, Mr. Davidson will chair the meeting.

Mr. Lyons asked the members to consider a format for the final Committee report to the County Commissioners. Mr. Taylor and Mr. Leeds agreed to address the issue.

Mr. Leeds reported that Shannon Robinson has prepared a ninety-page report, addressing all aspects of the voting process, and it could be made available to the Committee. Mr. Lyons requested that it be sent electronically, to members. He suggested that Ms. Robinson be invited to make a presentation to the Committee.

Regarding the public hearing on February 17, Mr. Harris moved and Mr. Leeds seconded a motion that the chairman be given a prerogative to allow additional time to individuals at the public hearings. The motion passed with 7 votes in favor and 1 opposed.

7. Public Comment

Mariah Conway said that in her work on a federal campaign in Larimer County, Vote Centers were not seen to be successful. She offered to share a report on it with the Committee. Ms. Conway anticipates that temp. workers would gladly work on election for a salary of $20 an hour.

Joe Pezzillo pointed out that a test cannot prove the absence of bugs. He referred again to the benefits of the Swiss Voting System.

Mr. McBurnett suggested that the public should be given an email address where they could send messages to the Committee regarding their input before the public hearing. Mr. Tiger responded that he had created an email address for the Committee and it could be used for that purpose. He will send it to members and it can be put into media announcements.

Lynn Segal presented a list of Voting Reform Measures that she would like to see implemented at the federal level.

8. Adjourn

The meeting was adjourned at 5:35 on unanimous approval of a motion made by Mr. Harris and seconded by Mr. Leeds.

Return to ERC Agendas and Minutes