RE: RFPET Recommendation

["Some Guy" <someguy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I don't see a reference to CO elections law. I see NASED and others, but not
state certification in regards to audits or paper trails.

Shall we let them rent this boondoggle for a million bucks and then stop
them from using it when it shows up as non-compliant? If we can't get our
way with the BoCC and clerk, then how about we try a judge?
In order to bring a case to court, the clerk would have show an intent to
use this mongrel dog. Intent would be to have rented it, not simply thinking
about it.

SG

-----Original Message-----
From: Neal McBurnett [mailto:neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 9:16 AM
To: cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RFPET Recommendation

Attached is a new version of the RFPET Recommendation which has
searchable/copyable text.

I don't yet see it at the clerk's web site

 http://www.co.boulder.co.us/clerk/elections/index.htm

It is a shame to see the committee not require that the system comply
with Colorado law (by producing auditable results) and rush ahead in
the face of so many problems.  And the 'bait and switch' from a rental
to suggesting that it be bought is a real end-run around the
democratic process.

We haven't seen the price yet, but the county should offer the same
possibility to other bidders and start the RFP process over, with
specific invites to ballot marking vendors and demands that the
Secretary of State should certify ballot marking equipment like other
states do.

Neal McBurnett                 http://bcn.boulder.co.us/~neal/
Signed and/or sealed mail encouraged.  GPG/PGP Keyid: 2C9EBA60

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.3/296 - Release Date: 03/29/2006