RE: RFPET Recommendation

["Some Guy" <someguy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I have seen ballot markers that are HAVA compliant. The first one I ever
heard about came from Al's information in the summer of 03.
The Automark was certified federally, but not in CO. After ES&S bought the
Automark it automatically lost its certification. I've heard that its back
on the EAC/FEC/NASED lists of good to go, but not in Colorado.

If BoCo insists on listening to Linda Salas and deems DRE a need, the
Automark is what I would push for.
If I were clerk I would buy the Automark and do battle with the SoS. This
has happened before in CO and the upshot is that the SoS gets to certifying
in a heartbeat.
It is unfortunate that the good candidate that we have to replace Linda may
arrive after Linda hozes up the works some more. She may leave the next
clerk at the bottom of a very deep hole.

As for leasing vs rental: the ERC, purchasing (Jenny); and the BoCC looked
at leasing vs rental. When we looked there were no rental vendors hawking
other people's equip. So we'd have to lease from the vendors themselves.
Their leasing contracts are lease with option to buy, however all of them
have a financial penalty for not buying. An in-depth look at the proposed
contract with Hart will make this evident. This is why the price to lease
and the price to buy is the same. BoCo is taking a hit.

SG



-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Pezzillo [mailto:jpezzillo@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 11:37 AM
To: CVV Voting
Subject: Re: RFPET Recommendation


I don't remember it being my idea as much as the group's consensus. I
recall we might have discussed the terms "rent" and "lease" but the
key message was that we don't want DRE equipment used, so make any
solution for 2004 temporary.

As for leasing, I'm not claiming to be a financial whiz, but the
vendor doesn't have to be the lessor, there are third party companies
that finance leases of equipment. More of that voluntary blindness
over there at the clerk's office that can only figure something out
if the vendor tells them how to do it. I think this has been
discussed at a CVV meeting as well, perhaps if we had representation
on the panel we might have been able to help even when it comes to
the money side of the deal. Heck, you could probably even buy it on a
credit card and then return it after the election for a complete
refund! (kidding, sorta, but not about the refund)

That original request to lease might have even been late '03, and the
other very specific requests we made included ballot markers, as well
as for the commissioners and clerk to lobby for needed legislative
changes.

That was two years ago, and the clerk has never once since then
lifted a finger to try and do what we asked of her, and now we see
the attitude is blame the citizens for her latest incompetence, yet
again.

Two years of digging out from the hole she dug by ignoring our advice
not to go with the system she insisted on buying, and she hasn't
dealt with the deadline she's known about since 2002?

And someone wants to suggest that the current mess is the fault of a
barely active mailing list with maybe a dozen participants!?!

Long live the Internet!

Joe

PS - Also, since CVV's presentation to the commissioners, let the
record show there are an increasing number of groups and people
active on this issue, so suggestions that the citizen activists are
some noisy minority are seriously misinformed. Let a thousand flowers
bloom ;-)