February 4th, 2005 DRAFT Minutes

DRAFT

MINUTES OF MEETING OF February 4, 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 4, 2005, at 1:00 p.m. in the Houston Room of the Boulder County Clerk and Recorder Building. The meeting was called to order by Richard Lyons, Chairman, at 1:10 p.m.

The meeting was attended, at roll call, by the following Committee Members: Richard Lyons, Tom Davidson, Linda Flack, Richard Harris, Hillary Hall, and Michael Taylor. Also present were Len Vest of the Colorado Department of State, Neil McClure, Vice President of Hart InterCivic, Scott Flom and John Covell of the Hart staff, and members of the public.

Mr. Harbour and Mr. Leeds were excused from attending the meeting. Paul Tiger arrived at the meeting at 1:15. Mr. Vest left the meeting at 3:15

2. Approval of Minutes

Corrections to the January 28 minutes were recorded and unanimously approved in a motion made by Ms. Flack and seconded by Mr. Taylor.

3. Public Comment

Mr. Pezzillo thanked Mr. Tiger for putting the Committee Exhibits on the coloradovoter.net web page. He requested a hard copy of all Exhibits. The Chairman, Mr. Lyons directed him to make arrangements with Ms. Shepard, Recording Secretary, to have them copied. Mr. Pezzillo then asked whether Hart/InterCivic will provide a refund to Boulder County.

4. Presentation by Representative of Hart/InterCivic

Mr. McClure made his presentation using an overhead projector. (EXHIBIT 14)

Hart/InterCivic over 90 years experience in state and local government services. .Election is at the core of their business which uses multiple systems, with customers in 16 states. Thirty current Colorado ballot customers are listed.

In describing optical scan technology the importance of mechanical stability was stressed, along with the importance of extremely tight print and trim tolerances in fixed position sensors.

In discussion of conditions that affect printing accuracy, he pointed out that paper is highly sensitive to environmental conditions. Even humidity affects the condition of paper. Swelling can affect the movement of paper through the machine.

A photograph of the official ballot was shown depicting various aspects of the scanning process. Another photo showed that the effect of changing humidity could move some of the boxes, horizontally on the ballot.

A flow chart of eSlate Electronic Voting System was presented with detailed description of function in various steps of the process.

The Ballot Now function is key to this system. It programs a memory card containing the standards for the ballot and can produce information used by any ballot style. eSlate and Ballot Now provide the ballot a voter uses. Ballot Now does not count ballots. It converts information from paper to electronic format. Customers are provided information they need. Boulder County has a priority for caution in counting ballots.

All ballot information is created in a single process using Postscript Files that fully define the print requirements. The only variables in a ballot a production cycle are:

Service and maintenance of the print device Paper selection

Storage, handling and conditioning of the paper Mr. Covell reported that when he looked at damaged ballots the problems had to do with paper conditions. He said that 3 Kodak scanners are used by Hart : 830 for high resolution, 3520 for mid, and 1500 for low. Kodak was chosen because they provide the best contract agreements and provide reliable and rapid service. The Committee was presented with a large book titled HELPFUL FACTS ABOUT PAPER. Members were given a copy of page 20 that contains a section on Conditioning Paper. (EXHIBIT 15)

Mr. McClure commented that damaged ballots are not the only problem in this election process. There is a Process Management issue here.

Mr. Harris presented a question that, he says, is on the mind of most voters, “why were we not given a broad marker with which to mark our votes, rather than a ball point pen?” The reason is because of the possibility of a broad marker bleeding through. Mr. Mc’’’’’’Clure says that may not be true, and he will get back with further information.

Scanning is done in batches that can be identified by precinct. A worker can go to a particular batch to pull out anomalies

In regard to a question about bar codes, Mr. Mc’’’’’’Clure said that a bar code error, if unreadable, is rejected. The batch report indicates which ballot was not read, and it can be pulled for examination.

Asked about the tolerance of 20% variation, he explained the 20% tolerance is in vertical shift, meaning the scanner could still read a voting box on the ballot if it were shifted 20% higher or lower on the page than intended.

Mr. Lyons asked for clarification that postscript files are fixed and cannot be changed by the county. Mr. McClure verified that and stated Hart has had no problems with postscript files at any other site.

To a question about maintenance, Mr. Covell reported that a tune-up is done on each machine before election, and a call for service is received 4 to 8 times a month.

When asked whether Hart had submitted a bid for printing, Mr. McClure said that they were invited to submit a bid but declined when state requirements became more stringent and time for production shorter.

Mr. Taylor inquired about measurement of rejected ballots. Mr. Hart reported that Hart is working to provide an overlay template that can be placed on a ballot to compare placement of boxes, etc. He will get it to Boulder County when it is developed. They have not provided this instrument before because these problems have not arisen before.

Mr. Lyons, to clarify, 4.7% of the ballots cast were damaged. Could the 95.3% correct ballots have been reported within 28 hours? Answer, Damaged ballots must be resolved before an accurate count can be made. Damaged ballots limit the counting time. Mr. Mc’’’’’’Clure agreed that he has commented that the Clerk’s very cautious approach to processing the ballots had an impact on reporting time for the election.

Mr. Davidson commented that it seems like this is not a good system for a large, general election.

Mr. Harris expressed that he is not entirely satisfied.

Mr. Tiger suggested that making batch size smaller would reduce the time for reporting. Mr. McClure responded that the amount of paper work required for each batch would reduce the time saved by having smaller batches.

5. Other business, including review of previously submitted documents, scheduling of public comments at an evening meeting, and committee members’ comments.

Mr. Lyons entered into record, a document from Jenny Olberding, Purchasing Agent, Boulder County, containing Boulder County Purchasing Policy, Purchase Order issued to Eagle Direct, and information regarding Boulder County bid/rfp records regarding Eagle Direct. (EXHIBIT 16)

An open meeting for the members of the public to address the committee will be held on Thursday, February 17 at 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. in a location yet to be determined. This will be in lieu of a Friday meeting of the Committee.

The meeting of the Committee next Friday, February 11 will be held in the Commissioner’s Conference Ms. Salas and Staff will appear for a discussion regarding Project Management. Neal McBurnett and Don Hayden have been invited to appear and discuss the Logic and Accuracy Test.

Ms. Flack requested to be excused from the next meeting.

6. Public Comment

Mr.Pezzillo commented that there was no discussion at this meeting of a possible refund from Hart to Boulder County nor of the problems in the Ohio Election. He stated that Orange County California Officials who used the Hart Voting System would not recommend the use of this system in a general election.

Mary Everly suggested removing a portion of the white space on the ballot. She questioned whether ballots were run through an off set printing process for some parts of the printing that are not done electronically. The answer is yes.

Neal McBurnett requested that the minutes of meetings be sent to coloradovoters.net and to him as well.

Mary Conway thanked the committee for the opportunity to participate and asked a question about evaluating damaged ballots. Mr. Tiger replied that the topic had been covered earlier in the meeting.

7. Adjourn

The meeting was adjourned at 5:15 by a unanimous vote on a motion by Ms. Hall and seconded by Mr. Tiger.

______________________________

Recording Secretary

Return to ERC Agendas and Minutes