February 17th, 2005 ERC Minutes

MINUTES OF MEETING OF FEBRUARY 17, 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 17, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. in the Boulder County Commissioners’ Hearing Room. The meeting was called to order by Richard Lyons, Chairman, at 6:40 p.m.

The meeting was attended, at roll call, by the following Committee Members: Richard Lyons, Richard Harris, Hillary Hall, David Leeds, Tom Davidson, Jay Harbour, Linda Flack, and Michael Taylor. Also present were members of the public.

Paul Tiger arrived at 6:45

2. Approval of Minutes

Corrections to the minutes of the February 11 meeting were recorded and unanimously approved by consensus of the members who were present at that meeting.

3. Public Comment

The Chairman, Mr. Lyons stated that the purpose of this meeting was to hear input from members of the public regarding the 2004 General Election. He opened the hearing by reading the charge from the Boulder County Commissioners to the Boulder County Elections Review Committee.

Six citizens registered to speak.

Chris M. Lucas stated that she has been an election judge since 1989. She was supply judge this year, and she also helped with the counting process. Ms. Lucas reported that the election staff was supportive and the training was good. Voters slowed the process when they failed to follow directions. She expressed her opinion that a raise in salary for the judges would probably attract a higher caliber of people.

Mr. Lyons inquired about the training of judges. Ms. Lucas replied that it was definitely adequate, and that it was tremendously important that the judges read the training manual. In answer to his question, about the training of voters, she said she believed it was adequate. Mr. Harris asked how the supply judges were informed about last minute changes in the procedures. Ms. Lucas replied they were kept informed. Communication with the election staff was more than adequate.

Ramona Boersma was a pole watcher, she reported that the judges performed well. She was present except for 2 hours during the day. She said that the boxes on the ballots, to be filled in with a pen, took too long. The ballot sheets were fragile and could easily come apart. Ms. Boersma believes the ballot should be redesigned, she questions competence of the company. Questioned about provisional ballots, she reported no problems with their handling.

Mary Eberle stated that she was present at the Hart presentation, and she notes that an important point made by Hart staff was omitted from the minutes of the meeting. She understood him to say that it was possible to remove a ballot batch, after it was scanned, and check it on a different machine to verify accuracy. Mr. Taylor remembers the conversation somewhat differently. Mr. Lyons said we can listen to the tape for clarification.

Lynn Segal mentioned that she had presented, at the last Committee meeting,, a list of changes she would like to recommend for the voting process and would like to review them here. Mr. Lyons pointed out that they have been put into the record and it is unnecessary to repeat them. She said she would like to add the issue that voting should be a legal requirement and eligible voters who failed to vote should be punished. Ms. Segal made an impassioned plea for the system to be changed to a hand count. She refuses to vote with an electronic system.

Cheryl Musser stated that she is not well informed, and wonders whether or not staff was present at the voting machines. She would like to see ballots counted at the precinct level. She does not favor raising the pay of election judges. Ms. Musser had to change her address late in the process and that was handled satisfactorily. She also said that she had wanted to volunteer to help but was never called to come in.

Ms. Musser asked if we are stuck with this system or if it could be changed. She also asked whether early votes and absentee ballots were counted as they came in.

Mr. Lyons answered that we are not stuck with this system, it is currently being evaluated, along with other aspects of the system. Mr. Hansard, from the election staff, clarified that counting of early and absentee ballots started 10 days before Election Day. State rules prohibit counting earlier than that.

Albert A. Bartlett described the development of the punch card system that was replaced by the new electronic system. He pointed out that the problems with the Florida ballots had to do with the process for punching the ballot. The system used in Boulder County did not use that process, and problems were not experienced here with punched cards. Professor Bartlett believes that the problems experienced with the electronic system could be expected, and that Boulder County should go back to the former punch card system.

Goef Cahoon was a pole watcher in the General Election. He spoke representing, Boulder House Party/ Boulder MoveOn, a group of 60 or more citizens who have continued to meet after coming together before the election, to follow up on issues that were raised at that time. The group has articulated 13 principles, REQUIREMENTS FOR THE VOTING PROCESS; a copy of the document is made available to Committee members. The group agrees with the statement made by Professor Bartlett. They encourage more citizen involvement in the process, stating that election workers do not need a raise in salaries, they need respect for their involvement. (EXHIBIT 21)

Peter Richards was an election judge in the Primaries and in the General Election. Flatirons School, where he worked, accommodated two precincts. He described the environment and the problems that were experienced at that site: Not enough time was allowed to prepare the pole site. About 150 people were waiting when the poles opened. There were too few voting booths, and they did not know whether or not to allow voters to use space outside of a booth to mark their ballot. The telephone lines were busy so they could not get through to inquire. In desperation and in violation of the rules for judges, Mr. Richards drove to the Clerk’s office to get more booths, and returned with two for each precinct in the building. Also with the information that spaces outside the booth may be used. He described the environment as chaotic, with many frustrated and impatient voters during the morning. The afternoon was quiet with voters drifting in sporadically. The large number of students in this precinct was one cause of the problem. Many were new voters who, did not understand the process and were not prepared to vote. Provisional ballots also added to the confusion. If a voter was not listed in the poll book, a regular ballot was issued and a judge wrote “PROVISIONAL” on the ballot. The voter was instructed to place it in a security envelope after voting, and return it to a judge. In the confusion of so many voters being processed, some voters left the envelope on the table and deposited the ballot in the ballot box instead of handing it back to the judge to be deposited in a folder for that purpose.

Ms. Flack asked whether judges were trained in handling voters. Ms. Lucas was invited to address the question. She described the voting process and stated that the training was excellent in handling of voters.

Mr. Taylor asked if, at the end of the day, the ballots balanced. Ms. Lucas said that the supply judge was obligated to make a report showing a balance and what happened with each ballot in their system. Mr. Richards stated that his team had difficulty accounting for every ballot until they discovered that one book of ballots contained only 85 instead of the required 100 ballots.

Mr. Leeds pointed out that the law requires that officials be able to examine reports of the supply judges after voting closes. Mr. Harbour stated that a Canvas Board looked at all of the reports and they could recommend that supply judges receive additional training.

Kathleen Ellis, Mr. Lyons read a message from Ms. Ellis, to be entered into record. Ms. Ellis was a supply judge in the Primary and the General Election. She submited the following information:

The supply judges’ materials included one copy of last minute information, produced by the Secretary of State’s office, which was to be read aloud to poll judges before opening of polls. It was almost impossible to do a good job of setting up the voting site in the one hour allotted. Everything is more complicated than it used to be, and poll watchers wanted her attention. Polls were busiest when they first opened so it was stressful for everyone. In her opinion, they need more time for set up or the County should go to central voting sites. “This is getting to be a job that should be handled by professionals.”

“The large ballots were a nightmare on every level.” Voters had difficulty getting them into security envelopes; sliding them into the ballot box was difficult; they tended to roll up in the ballot box rather than stacking;, it was difficult to get them out and keep them in order, and they were clumsy to count, requiring an inordinate amount of space to handle. The most difficult problem involved people who were not listed in the poll book. Instructions were to call the central office to find out how to handle these issues, but it was almost impossible to get through by telephone. Supply judge position was frustrating. Materials were to be picked up on Saturday morning, but they were not ready, because early voting went late on Friday and staff did not have time to prepare them. Pick-up was changed to Sunday afternoon. A lengthy delay occurred and left the supply judges waiting in their cars for more than an hour before distribution began. Ms. Ellis felt abused in the process and she expressed that it is a mistake to abuse people who are essentially volunteering their time. Supply judges receive $39 extra. (EXHIBIT 22)

4. Schedule Public Hearing for Eastern Boulder County (march 3, 2005) at Longmont Senior Center.

Mr. Lyon has contracted with the Longmont Senior Center for the Boulder County Election Committee to hold a public hearing in that facility on Thursday, March 3 from 6:30 to 9:00 p.m. He was unable to schedule the large room he preferred, but the hearing will be held in a smaller room in a less convenient location in the building. Ms. Flack suggested putting up signs with directions to the space. (EXHIBIT 23)

5. Other business, including review of previously submitted documents, future agendas, discussion of report format, and committee members’ comments.

Myriah Conroy submitted to the Committee copies of two Sample Ballots, one an error listing of candidates for District 2, the other showing a blank where District 2 candidates would have been. She stated that the sample ballots came from Lisa Duran in the office of the Secretary of State. (EXHIBIT 24)

Mr. Lyons presented a memorandum from Neil McClure of Hart InterCivic, providing information that was requested by the Committee during his presentation on February 4. Six items are included: 1. Through put for equipment in BOCO. Estimate impact of two revolving stations to keep the scanner going. 2. Link to Xerox paper document. 3. Big marker on Ballot Now ballots: The option boxes are off set on the front and back so bleeding through is not an issue. 4. Answers to the email questions: attached. 5. A copy of the Ballot Now training manual in softcopy. 6. Electronic copy of our presentation.

He pointed out that they are hesitant to supply electronic copies of items 5 and 6 if it goes on the web. This information is generally confined to their customers and not the public at large as it could be on the web. He asked that the Committee limit the distribution, of these items, to its members. The Committee agreed by consensus to honor the proprietary rights of Hart by limiting distribution of item 5. (EXHIBIT 25)

On a motion made by Ms. Flack and seconded by Mr. Leeds, The Committee voted unanimously to cancel the regular meeting of February 25 due to the schedule of the members that precludes attendance and jeopardizes a quorum being met.

Mr. Tiger stated that he has additional questions for Eagle. He will share answers with the committee.

Mr. Harbor reported that he has been invited to participate in additional training by the election staff, inquiring whether that involvement would be compatible with Committee work. It was agreed that there would be no conflict of interest in the matter. Mr. Harbour also said that other Committee members could probably be included in the training if they are so inclined. There will be a demonstration of the voting system for City officials on Friday, February 25 from 10:30 to 11:30 a.m. and Committee members are welcome to attend.

Mr. Harris raised the issue as whether or not Committee members are covered by insurance. Mr. Lyons stated that Committee members are covered by the County in Errors and Omissions and that they are covered by a state statute in the Governmental Immunity Act. Mr. Leeds stated that he is comfortable that the Committee is safe.

Committee members held a discussion of aspects of the various presentations they have heard, in beginning to consider a final report.

6. Adjourn

The meeting was adjourned by unanimous vote on a motion made by Ms. Hall and seconded by Mr. Harbor.

___________________________ Recording Secretary

Return to ERC Agendas and Minutes