RE: Discussion of ERC Report FINAL, hopefully not Insults

["Paul Tiger - LPBC - Outreach" <outreach@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Got a few comments - read down ...

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul E Condon [mailto:pecondon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

So what about the Content of the report? It seems to me that
Hart Intercivic came off rather badly. This is good.
But there are other issues. The committee likes the idea of
having ballot scanners in every precinct and/or voting center.
In principal this is a good idea, but how will the precinct
judges be trained to keep them working? My experience with
being trained by County staff is that it is really totally
crazy training. On the one hand a bunch of senior citizens
are told 'Don't worry, its easy, just do what the instructions
say.' and on the other hand they can't answer any questions
about the exact meaning of the instructions. Where will
competant instructors come from?
[|PT>]
[|PT>] Very good point Paul. I think that training has always been an issue.
Like many of us, I've been an elections judge for many years. Most who have
been know that the training is almost pointless. Reading the judges manual
cover to cover (about 40 mins of reading) would get you to the same place.
When technical things came up in the past, most polling judges ended up
winging it on their own because a) they couldn't reach anyone in the clerks
office; or b) no one in the clerks office knew an answer.
Prior to 02, I might have spent an hour each election day repairing the
punch machines with my own tools. I wised up and repaired them before 6am at
my house. I know of others doing similar things, because the clerk did not
provide tech support or training to fix these problems. I'd show people in
the clerks office how I fixed punchers and they were thrilled at how easy it
was to do, but then did not pass on that info, or fix them before issuing
them.
Different clerk; different systems; same issues.

The best way I think that we can accomplish training is to have the trainers
play with the systems before training day. All the trainers need to be tech
savvy. That probably means the CVV/activist community.
The people that experiment with these new systems should do so in a
lab/class environment and then they should help the elections manager write
the judges manual. Josh knows the law, and the trainers will know the
systems.

If we went to precinct electronics of some kind (DRE, paper scanners) then
each precinct would really need a tech savvy person. Boulder has lots of
those, but we also have 227 precincts and lots of apathy. Personally, I
think that the labor force for elections is recruited in a very bizarre way,
which (if it continues) will continue to bring us completely unqualified
judges and more troubles.

This is one of the reasons that vote centers are so tasty. Instead of needed
227 tech savvy and in-depth trained folks, we need 40 - 50. One tech/judge
having a problem would be able to reach the other tech/judges more easily
and resolve their issues more quickly than in the past.

------------------------------
Hart has established that they cannot be believed in almost
anything they say. So how can the County rely on them to
service the equipment? To make modifications to the software?
etc.
[|PT>]
[|PT>] We cannot rely on them. We paid Hart $78K to provide support in 04.
Look what we got for that outlay?
When the county wanted to run a ballot audit report, Hart charged separately
for that, saying it wasn't covered under the tech support agreement. So we
paid more. In fact, there were several things that Hart charged extra for,
that many of us believe should have been already covered.
Linda pulled $52K from voter outreach and education to use to pay for more
technical support. In 04 BoCo paid Hart $130K for support, which appears now
to have been lip service.

Several memos from county staffers and citizen judges about the software
issues were given to Hart. Hart now says that these suggestions are
proprietary and BoCo (or the ERC) could not now review them; or know what
Hart's response is.
I personally have serious doubts that Hart will act on these needed
modifications. And from our past experiences, I doubt that paying them more
will have much effect.

As long as we use Hart's central counting system elections will be slow to
tally. And we sure as hell don't need to pay Hart anymore money to prove
that point.

--------------------------------
My reading of the thumbnail sketch of scanners in the precinct
is that they are somehow mechanical joined to a ballot box so
that when the voter presses an OK-button the voted ballot is
dropped into the ballot box. This will take some engineering
development. By Hart? Really, is this a smart idea?
[|PT>]
[|PT>] Aha - clarification is needed here.
Ballot box scanners have been around for almost 20 years. The most well
known is from Diebold. The Diebold one that I played with in 03 was a
opto-scanner on top of what looks like a big Rubbermaid garbage can. Several
other makers have these as well. ES&S; Sequoia; etc. So there's no new
engineering needed. They've been around a long time; they're certified and
in current use around this state.
If the ballot is over or under voted, the scanner tells the voter and gives
the voter to opportunity to correct anything. If the voter presses the OK
button, then instead of the ballot being rejected back to the voter, it goes
into the ballot box below. The count is in the scanner and the ballot in the
box.

Back to Hart. Hart doesn't have one of these -yet. They say they are
developing one and want to sell it to us. As insane as this might sound, I
would rather use a Diebold scanner/ballot box than anything from Hart.
Hart made us a beta test site in 04, but lied about that. Now they are
saying that we would be a beta test site.
Linda Salas wants to buy from Hart because she thinks that systems
integration is only possible if we have all the equipment from the same
vendor. Hogwash.

------------------------------
I wonder about the feasibility of renting equipment for
the conduct of elections. From whom? What will the person/
company that offers to rent to the County be doing with
the equipment before and after the election? This is rather
specialize equipment, not party tables and chairs, or
small cement mixers or garden tractors. Are there really
local firms who rent what is needed?
[|PT>]
[|PT>] Yes there really are firms that will rent the equipment, and they are
the same ones that will sell it or lease it to us. They are the
manufacturers of the equipment. They actually can't be some third party. The
certified equipment can only be dealt with by the maker. I'm pretty sure
that the makers wouldn't want someone else to mess with their stuff anyway.
Can we say proprietary again?
BoCo has rented or leased elections equip in the past. It's nothing new. In
03 we leased a Diebold scanner for the mail-ballot envelopes. Despite the
hue and cry at the time, this device was not scanning ballots.

What the ERC did say was RENT not lease. There is a huge difference, which
appears to have been lost on the elections division.
Buyers who cannot afford to drop a bundle at one time are invited to lease.
At the end of the lease they can pay off the remainder and own the
equipment.
Renters are checking things out. They are not buyers, yet. Or maybe they'll
never be buyers, just renters.
Renting is way cheaper than leasing, and rental contracts more flexible than
leases.

Paul Tiger