RE: RFPET Recommendation

["Delta" <delta@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

First, I really wasn't trying to rag on the activists.....
It was a good idea that backfired.
Who knew?

Second, the bit about resale.....
It's the only difference between buying and leasing.....
when the price is exactly the same, ay least when you buy, you got
*something* to show for the money.
*Maybe* you can resale it, maybe not.
If you lease....you got squat.

Third, the committee actually inquired as to what the ramifications would be
to NOT be compliant.for the election.
Basically, fines....loss of grant monies and maybe having the feds come in
to run the election.
none of that sounded too good.
Ergo....get compliant.

Bo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Some Guy [mailto:someguy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 4:43 AM
> To: cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: RFPET Recommendation
>
>
> Hmmm ... some clarification is due - sorry Bo.
>
> It was Joe Pezzillo who suggested leasing back in early 04 when we were
> talking about the Ballot Now system. I'd heard him say it before
> in a closed
> group, but the first time the lease word appeared on the radar
> was from Joe.
> Thank you Joe.
>
> Leasing elections equip is nothing new to Boulder or any other
> county. BoCo
> has leased Diebold scanners since 1998. Many rural counties lease more of
> what they need on even numbered years when turn out is higher.
>
> The ERC recommended renting new systems or additional bits if the need
> arose. It has (dubious). In December, former ERC members sent a letter to
> the BoCC and clerk reiterating our list of recommendations.
> We do not believe that it is fiscally responsible to purchase unproven
> systems. We paid millions to be a beta test site for Hart - that is clear.
> We specifically chose the word *rent* as opposed to *lease*. Leasing means
> you are a buyer and leasing contracts penalize the leaser if they
> don't buy.
> Leasing is always to the advantage of the vendor, renting is a plain deal.
>
> The idea that this or any county could resell their elections systems at
> anything but an immense loss is based on lack of knowledge. Would
> you buy a
> used system from a county who was plagued by problems with it?
> Yes, we could sell it for scrap, but the county isn't going to
> get some kind
> of tax break on a business loss. It is not a business, it is a tax funded
> service.
>
> The experience that the ERC had with Hart and Eagle and the laws in flux
> convinced us that buying anything would be a terrible mistake at this
> juncture. None of this stuff is ready for prime time.
>
> While I understand that some folks think that we need to procure
> DRE at this
> time (or ever) there are many who think it unwise. Our clerk has
> invented a
> deadline that does not exist. She's misinterpreted HAVA and her staff
> follows her lead. The county attorney asked her opinion before
> advising the
> BoCC. I have doubts that he's actually read HAVA. Only a few
> people actually
> have and most agree that section 301 says we don't need DRE. It
> might appear
> to be impractical, but the law is pretty clear.
>
> As there is consternation over what HAVA actually says, and we
> only have one
> certified vendor to choose from at this time - why would we want to buy or
> lease anything?
> If your response is that Linda will go to jail or that the state won't
> certify our election, better check with the state circuit court, which has
> already stated that it won't be hearing cases this year about HAVA
> non-compliance.
> Linda Salas wants BoCo to spend a million bucks to restore her good name.
> Nothing more.
>
> Some Guy
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Delta [mailto:delta@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 2:42 PM
> To: Neal McBurnett; cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: RFPET Recommendation
>
> Let me set the record straight....
> (see below)
>
> > -----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.
>
> WRONG! The recommendations say that a real audit must be and *can* be
> performed....
> YOU were instrumental in us recommending that!
>
>
>  And the 'bait and switch' from a rental
> > to suggesting that it be bought is a real end-run around the
> > democratic process.
>
> Bullcrap! It is being fiscally responsible.
> Do you know what the leasing price is???   a.b million
> Do you know what the purchase price is???    a.b million
> (I *think* the price is public at this time, but just in case)
> So, which would *you* do? Rent it for a price and then give it
> back, or buy
> it for the same price and then at least have something you could sell or
> even scrap....*something*??
> Lease it and you got nada.....there is no other option.
>
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> And how does this get us compliant for the election in November????
> You know what *really* pisses me off?
> The Clerk is in this position BECAUSE OF THIS GROUP OF CVV ACTIVISTS!
> YOU pushed to rent not purchase.....
> and when the Clerk got screwed because *nobody* wants to rent ( who knew?)
> NOW you jump all over them for trying to salvage the situation?
>
> you're a better man than that, Neal.....
>
>
> >
> > 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
>
>
>