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@qwest.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 8:33
AM
To:
Subject: FW: Request for
Information
Ms.
Williams,
It was my understanding
that I was to submit SOS correspondence to you. Is this
correct?
Al
Al Kolwicz
CAMBER -
Citizens for Accurate Mail Ballot Election Results
303-494-1540
AlKolwicz@qwest.net
www.users.qwest.net/~alkolwicz
http://coloradovoter.blogspot.com/
From: AlKolwicz
[mailto:alkolwicz@qwest.net]
Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005 2:43
PM
To:
Subject: FW: Request for
Information
Ms.
Williams:
Did you receive the
following request?
Al
Al
Kolwicz
CAMBER - Citizens for
Accurate Mail Ballot Election Results
303-494-1540
AlKolwicz@qwest.net
www.users.qwest.net/~alkolwicz
http://coloradovoter.blogspot.com/
From: AlKolwicz
[mailto:alkolwicz@qwest.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 2:16
PM
To: '
Cc:
Subject: RE: Request for
Information
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:
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 9:54
AM
To: AlKolwicz
Cc: Bill Hobbs; Bill Compton; Patti
Fredrick;
Subject: RE: Request
for Information
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
Public Information Officer
Secretary of State's Office
1700
Broadway, Suite 250
Denver, CO 80290
(303) 894-2200 ext. 6108
(303) 869-4860 Fax
dana.williams@sos.state.co.us
www.sos.state.co.us
-----Original
Message-----
From: AlKolwicz
[mailto:alkolwicz@qwest.net]
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 11:26
AM
To:
Cc: Bill Hobbs; Bill Compton; Patti
Fredrick; Wayne Munster;
Subject: Request for
Information
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@qwest.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 4:38
PM
To:
Subject: Follow up and some new
data
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@qwest.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 10:51
AM
To: '
Subject: RE: Reaction to potential
RFP
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
CAMBER - Citizens for
Accurate Mail Ballot Election Results
303-494-1540
AlKolwicz@qwest.net
www.users.qwest.net/~alkolwicz
http://coloradovoter.blogspot.com/
From:
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 3:49
PM
To: AlKolwicz
Subject: RE: Reaction to potential
RFP
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@sos.state.co.us
-----Original
Message-----
From: AlKolwicz
[mailto:alkolwicz@qwest.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 11:12
AM
To:
Subject: RE: Reaction to potential
RFP
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
CAMBER - Citizens for
Accurate Mail Ballot Election Results
303-494-1540
AlKolwicz@qwest.net
www.users.qwest.net/~alkolwicz
http://coloradovoter.blogspot.com/
From:
Sent: Wednesday, August 31,
2005 11:01 AM
To:
AlKolwicz
Subject: RE: Reaction
to potential RFP
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@sos.state.co.us
-----Original
Message-----
From: AlKolwicz
[mailto:alkolwicz@qwest.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 10:01
AM
To:
Cc: John Gardner;
Subject: RE: Reaction to potential
RFP
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
CAMBER - Citizens for
Accurate Mail Ballot Election Results
303-494-1540
AlKolwicz@qwest.net
www.users.qwest.net/~alkolwicz
http://coloradovoter.blogspot.com/
From: AlKolwicz
[mailto:alkolwicz@qwest.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 9:39
AM
To: '
Cc:
Subject: RE: Reaction to potential
RFP
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.
We are
referring to the analysis defined in C.R.S.
24-4-103(4.5);
(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
CAMBER - Citizens for
Accurate Mail Ballot Election Results
303-494-1540
AlKolwicz@qwest.net
www.users.qwest.net/~alkolwicz
http://coloradovoter.blogspot.com/
From:
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005
4:43 PM
To:
AlKolwicz
Cc: John
Gardner
Subject: RE: Reaction
to potential RFP
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@sos.state.co.us
-----Original
Message-----
From: AlKolwicz
[mailto:alkolwicz@qwest.net]
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 3:46
PM
To:
Subject: RE: Reaction to potential
RFP
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
CAMBER - Citizens for
Accurate Mail Ballot Election Results
303-494-1540
AlKolwicz@qwest.net
www.users.qwest.net/~alkolwicz
http://coloradovoter.blogspot.com/
From:
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005
4:06 PM
To:
AlKolwicz
Subject: RE: Reaction
to potential RFP
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@sos.state.co.us
-----Original
Message-----
From: AlKolwicz
[mailto:alkolwicz@qwest.net]
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 8:08
AM
To:
Subject: Reaction to potential
RFP
Len
Attached
is a word document. Please let me know that you can open and read
it.
Thanks
Al
Al
Kolwicz
CAMBER - Citizens for
Accurate Mail Ballot Election Results
303-494-1540
AlKolwicz@qwest.net
www.users.qwest.net/~alkolwicz
http://coloradovoter.blogspot.com/