|
Friends, The Secretary of State has secretly developed and published (October
3, 2005) a massive Request for Proposal -- http://www.elections.colorado.gov/admin/LogReportingManagement/LinkClick.aspx?
This is an arrogant display of
insensitivity to the public and an arrogant presumption of technical infallibility. This RFP will influence/control the purchase
of all voting equipment in the State of
1. To
select a Preferred Vendor for
which the CDOS Elections Division will provide election setup and tabulation
software support to counties that choose to purchase the Preferred
Vendor’s system;
2. To
purchase and maintain training, support, upgrades, hardware and software from
the Preferred Vendor for use by he CDOS Elections Division to achieve goal 1.
3. To
establish documented pricing for voting system vendor products and services
that may be utilized by Colorado election officials during their voting system
procurement efforts from the Preferred Vendor; and
4. To
allow for existing methods of procuring voting systems by County election
officials to exist independent of the Preferred Vendor models.
For many months, CAMBER has asked to work
with the Secretary of State to ensure that the RFP would represent the needs of
the public. State has stalled and stalled. Just today, the Election
Division’s website shows that the RFP has been completed and
released. Obviously State was stalling us while secretly developing the RFP. See the
correspondence below for the background. A quick reading of the RFP is enough to
discover that all we feared has now happened. While voluminous, the work
is pitifully incomplete and does not establish a basis for the evolution of a
secure, accurate, verifiable and transparent election system in The people in the Secretary of States’
office have, through their actions, announced their total disregard for the
public. They have also made the arrogant statement that they are infallible
and the only ones who matter. If I could, I would make the Secretary of
State withdraw this RFP and establish the public process that we have
requested. If you
can, please do something to make the Secretary of State withdraw this RFP and establish
the public process that we have requested. Al Al Kolwicz CAMBER Citizens for Accurate Mail Ballot Election Results 303-494-1540 www.users.qwest.net/~alkolwicz
http://coloradovoter.blogspot.com CAMBER is a dedicated group of
volunteers who are working to ensure that every voter gets to vote once, every
vote is counted once, and that every ballot is secure and anonymous. To change your email address, click here.
To unsubscribe from this newsletter, click here,
or reply to this email with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject
line. From: AlKolwicz
[mailto:alkolwicz@xxxxxxxxx] Ms. Williams, It was my understanding that I was to
submit SOS correspondence to you. Is this correct? Al Al Kolwicz From: AlKolwicz
[mailto:alkolwicz@xxxxxxxxx] Ms. Williams: Did you receive the following request? Al Al Kolwicz From: AlKolwicz
[mailto:alkolwicz@xxxxxxxxx] Ms. Williams: Thank you for the partial response to our
queries.
Please confirm that you have received this
e-mail and our request for a regulatory analysis. Al Kolwicz CAMBER Citizens for Accurate Mail Ballot Election Results 303-494-1540 www.users.qwest.net/~alkolwicz
http://coloradovoter.blogspot.com CAMBER is a dedicated group of
volunteers who are working to ensure that every voter gets to vote once, every
vote is counted once, and that every ballot is secure and anonymous. From: Mr. Kolwicz: The Secretary of State's office did
receive your fax dated September 21, 2005 concerning The Secretary of State has announced a
rulemaking hearing schedule for October 31, 2005 at 1:30 p.m. to take
public testimony for our rules concerning certification of voting
equipment. The hearing is located in the Blue Spruce Room at
1700 Broadway, I hope this information is helpful. Thank you, Dana Jaclyn Williams -----Original Message----- Ms. Williams, We have been attempting, since July 25th,
to gain access to certain information regarding Colorado Elections
projects. Today we learned that we are to direct our
queries to you.
Election officials and the public appear
to be approaching the election system from incompatible directions. We
believe that the customer of the election system is the public – which
includes the voters, political parties, contestants, etc. Responsiveness
to public suggestions and queries suggests that SOS believes that the customer
is the election official. It is our experience that the customer decides
the requirements, accepts (or rejects) the finished system, evaluates its
performance and pays the bills. If we do in fact differ in our
understanding of who is the customer, we should resolve this issue first. Time is a-ticking. I hope that you
will use your good office to respond to our requests, and bring the public into
the process before battle lines are inadvertently drawn. Al Kolwicz CAMBER Citizens for Accurate Mail Ballot Election Results 303-494-1540 www.users.qwest.net/~alkolwicz
http://coloradovoter.blogspot.com CAMBER is a dedicated group of
volunteers who are working to ensure that every voter gets to vote once, every
vote is counted once, and that every ballot is secure and anonymous. From: AlKolwicz
[mailto:alkolwicz@xxxxxxxxx] Hi Len, We are still waiting for responses to our five
requests. Don’t you agree that it has been an excessive wait? As you consider the RFP, I’ve attached a
“testimonial” for AutoMark. Al Kolwicz CAMBER Citizens for Accurate Mail Ballot Election Results 303-494-1540 www.users.qwest.net/~alkolwicz
http://coloradovoter.blogspot.com From: AlKolwicz
[mailto:alkolwicz@xxxxxxxxx] Hello Len, Just in case our outstanding requests have
been misplaced, please accept this as a reminder message. “As you know, our requests include
(1) SCORE, (2) voting system standards, rules and regulatory analysis, (3) RFP
requirements, (4) voting system architecture, performance and functional
specification, and (5) transparency.” Thanks Al Al Kolwicz From: Will do. By the way, most of
the items in your list don’t impact this November’s election.
They will all impact 2006 elections. Help Colorado Department of State 1700 Broadway, Office: 303.894.2200 X 6317 Direct: 303.860.6929 Fax: 303.869.4861 mailto:len.vest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -----Original
Message----- Thanks Len, Please let me know how we
can help expedite action. As you know, our requests
include (1) SCORE, (2) voting system standards, rules and regulatory analysis,
(3) RFP requirements, (4) voting system architecture, performance and
functional specification, and (5) transparency. We are concerned that
time to protect the November election is running out. Al Al Kolwicz From: Good Morning
Al, I was out of
town last week for clerk training. I did take your request with me in
hopes of talking to Bill Compton (Elections Director) and Patti Fredrick (HAVA
Director) about it. They are much more familiar with the procedures
related to such a request, so I wanted them to give me direction. I will
try to speak with them today, so I can give you feedback. I apologize for
the delay. We are still working on the drafting of the RFP, so lots of
work remaining to get it ready for release. I’ll get
back to you. Thanks, Len Help Colorado
Department of State 1700
Broadway, Office:
303.894.2200 X 6317 Direct:
303.860.6929 Fax:
303.869.4861 mailto:len.vest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -----Original
Message----- Hi Len, I am
sure that you are very busy, but we are very concerned that our requests
(below) are not being satisfied in a timely manner. Are you
the correct person to whom these communications should be addressed? Al Al
Kolwicz From: AlKolwicz
[mailto:alkolwicz@xxxxxxxxx] Hi Len, I
appreciate this opportunity to discuss 1. Regarding SCORE – we hope that you are planning an extensive
public presentation of the system before you deploy it. A simple
demonstration will not suffice. There are several technologists who are
concerned that the system will not be secure, accurate, verifiable and
transparent. The non-transparent methods used to develop the system have left
a lot of bad feelings. It is the last chance to engage the public.
After all, the recent failing of the benefits system should alert you to the
risks of pushing something out before it has public support. 2. Regarding new voting system standards and rules change – we
have requested procedures for requesting a regulatory analysis. We want
to use this mechanism to get answers to our questions. The procedure used
for the August 2nd rules hearing was totally unsatisfactory.
It is not enough for SOS to “allow” the public to write
comments. Written, “I feel your pain”, acknowledgements would
not be an adequate response to the public input. The public is the
CUSTOMER. We need our concerns addressed, so we hope that the regulatory
analysis will initiate an independent and competent technical review of the
proposed standards and rules. (4.5) (a)
Upon request of any person, at least fifteen days prior to the hearing, the
agency shall issue a regulatory analysis of a proposed rule. The regulatory
analysis shall contain: (I) A
description of the classes of persons who will be affected by the proposed
rule, including classes that will bear the costs of the proposed rule and
classes that will benefit from the proposed rule; (II) To the
extent practicable, a description of the probable quantitative and qualitative
impact of the proposed rule, economic or otherwise, upon affected classes of
persons; (III) The probable
costs to the agency and to any other agency of the implementation and
enforcement of the proposed rule and any anticipated effect on state revenues; (IV) A
comparison of the probable costs and benefits of the proposed rule to the
probable costs and benefits of inaction; (V) A
determination of whether there are less costly methods or less intrusive
methods for achieving the purpose of the proposed rule; and (VI) A
description of any alternative methods for achieving the purpose of the
proposed rule that were seriously considered by the agency and the reasons why
they were rejected in favor of the proposed rule. (b) Each
regulatory analysis shall include quantification of the data to the extent
practicable and shall take account of both short-term and long-term
consequences. (c) The
regulatory analysis shall be available to the public at least five days prior
to the rule-making hearing. (d) If the
agency has made a good faith effort to comply with the requirements of
paragraphs (a) to (c) of this subsection (4.5), the rule shall not be
invalidated on the ground that the contents of the regulatory analysis are
insufficient or inaccurate. (e) Nothing
in paragraphs (a) to (c) of this subsection (4.5) shall limit an agency's
discretionary authority to adopt or amend rules. (f) The
provisions of this subsection (4.5) shall not apply to rules and regulations
promulgated by the department of revenue regarding the administration of any
tax which is within the authority of said department. 3. Regarding the RFP – it is the “requirements” that
you refer to that have us most concerned. It would be an opportunity
missed if you were to complete a requirements statement in secret. Once
requirements have been documented, staff will have much sweat invested in the
document and will naturally tend to defend their own work rather than openly
interacting the public. We encourage yo to open the process before it is
too late. 4. Regarding the voting system architecture, performance and
functional specifications, etc. – there are a number of books that
describe the path to excellence here. Also, we have written some
illustrative lists, not intended to be comprehensive, of functions to be
included and performance factors to be achieved. We’re happy to
discuss them with you. We appear
to be approaching the election system from incompatible directions. We
believe that the customer of the election system is the public – which
includes the voters, political parties, contestants, etc. It appears that
SOS believes that the customer is the election official. The customer
decides the requirements, accepts (or rejects) the finished system, evaluates
its performance and pays the bills. If we do in fact differ in our
understanding of who is the customer, we should resolve this issue first. Time is
a-ticking. I hope that you will use this opportunity to reconsider the
direction you have chosen and bring the public into the process before you
inadvertently draw battle lines. Al
Al
Kolwicz From: Al, I apologize
for not getting back to you sooner. We have been busy with SCORE system
testing over the past month. I’ll try to catch you up on where we
are. John has been
working diligently on constructing new voting system certification standards
for You stated in
your memo that Section 2 of our RFI indicated a very different set of requirements
than what you understood from our last meeting. The purpose of the RFP is
to establish pricing and contract terms with vendors who meet the requirements
specified in the RFP and to select one vendor to be considered a
“Colorado Preferred Vendor”. The SOS will support counties
that select the preferred vendor by assisting with election software
setup. This allows an option to the small counties that don’t have
the expertise or staff to perform the software functions in-house.
Counties that do not want or need to use the preferred vendors will have other
vendors to work with as a result of the RFP and the Vendors will
be required to operate (once SCORE is operational) with a standard election
setup import and election tabulation export with SCORE. You mentioned
canvass board support and we see that, as it relates to the RFP, as voting
system report features that facilitates the canvass board activities. Our RFP will
have diagrams of more than one scenario of how voting systems might function in
Regarding
performance specifications and functionality specifications, does CAMBER have
what they consider best practice examples from other jurisdictions or
internally generated by CAMBER? If so, I would be glad to review and
consider such input. We do want to serve the best interest of the voter
through all phases of the voting process, including backend office transaction
processing. Thanks for
your concern. Help Colorado
Department of State 1700
Broadway, Office:
303.894.2200 X 6317 Direct:
303.860.6929 Fax:
303.869.4861 mailto:len.vest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -----Original
Message----- Len, It is
coming up on a month since we met. Have you had a chance to review our
July 25th letter? (attached) Al Al
Kolwicz From: Yes, I was able to
open the attachment. Will read tonight. We have been working on
rules all day to get posted tonight. Tx, Len Help Colorado
Department of State 1700 Broadway,
Office:
303.894.2200 X 6317 Direct:
303.860.6929 Fax:
303.869.4861 mailto:len.vest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -----Original
Message----- Len Attached
is a word document. Please let me know that you can open and read it. Thanks Al Al
Kolwicz |