| Citizens for Verifiable Voting | April 8th, 2005 Minutes |
UserPreferences |
DRAFT
MINUTES OF MEETING OF
APRIL 8, 2005
BOULDER COUNTY ELECTION REVIEW COMMITTEE
1. Call to Order, Roll Call
The meeting of the Boulder County Election Review Committee was held on April 8, 2005, at 1:00 p.m. in Houston Conference Room, Boulder County Clerk and Recorder’s Building. The meeting was called to order by Richard Lyons, Chairman, at 1:07 p.m.
The meeting was attended at roll call by the following Committee Members: Richard Lyons, Richard Harris, Hillary Hall, Michael Taylor, Jay Harbour, Linda Flack and Tom Davidson. Also present were Patty Stahl, Tim Hansford and members of the public.
Paul Tiger arrived at 1:50. There was no representative of the Secretary of State Office David Leeds did not attend the meeting.
2. Approval of Minutes of Previous Meeting
Corrections to the minutes of the April 1 meeting were recorded and approved by unanimous vote on a motion made by Mr. Harris and seconded by Mr. Harbour.
3· Public Comment
Paul Walmsley is a systems analyst in software development. He worked as a volunteer in the November 2004 election in Boulder. He has been an activist for greater election transparency since 1993.
Mr. Walmsley presented three documents. (EXHIBIT 41)
![[WWW]](/wiki/img/moin-www.gif){kind=small}
How to effectively pre-test blank ballots in the Hart InterCivic optical scan system. by Paul Walmsley April 8, 2005·
1, 2) by Paul Walmsley and Margit Johansson April 8, 2005
Technology and the Voting Process by KPMG/Sussex Circle prepared for Elections Canada June 15, 1998 He described a method for using existing scanners and software to test a small sample of the ballots to be used in an election, ahead of time, to determine whether the entire batch of paper ballots will scan without being damaged. This method has not been tested, but he believes it will be effective.
Mr. Walmsley then described a method for testing live election ballots, pointing out that the LATs are done only on test ballots. This method involves a hand count of a portion of the live ballots and comparing that information with that which the ballot interpreting machines produce. Key to this method is the use of a unique serial number on each ballot and requiring the machine to generate a “Ballot Interpretation Report.” He pointed out that, with150,000 ballots voted, a hand-count team would need to review 921 randomly selected ballots to guarantee that the machines are interpreting at least 99.5% of the votes correctly.
This audit system was suggested to The County Commissioners and Ms. Salas, and was declined. The Ballot Now system does not produce a Ballot Interpretation Report
Mr. Walmsley asked the Committee to recommend that Boulder County implement a precinct count like the Canadian Process, which is described in the document he handed out.
In discussion of the presentation, the issue of Colorado strict regulations regarding the handling of ballots was raised. Mr. Walmsley stated that existing serial numbers on the ballots could be used, and that pulling ballots from the machine does not affect the ballot counting process. This may be done before or after counting.
Regarding the reason for Officials declining this plan, Mr. Walmsley said they were interested but probably did not want to further complicate the new voting system. Making inquiry of Hart about their capability to produce the report, he was told that it could be done, but that the company has a policy not to engage, in that way, with ballots.
Comparison was made, with the audit hand count method, suggested by Neal McBurnett
Mr. Lyons thanked Mr. Walmsley for his presentation, stating that the information will be considered in generating the Committee final report.
4. Other pending business, including, but not limited to:
b. Discussion 0f format for final report and mechanics for preparation/drafting
Mr. Lyons anticipates that the Committee might be able to complete a first draft of the final report after two more meetings. The goal is to have a completed report for presentations by mid-May
In deliberation as to how to release the draft report to parties who have provided information to the Committee, it was suggested, by Mr. Taylor, that the draft be included in the minutes, which are sent to involved parties, giving them an opportunity to respond at their discretion. The draft report itself would be given to the election staff. The issue was tabled for further consideration.
Mr. Lyons raised the issue of hiring a professional editor to write the final report from an approved draft. Ms. Hall stated that her friend, Louella Pizzugi is available and interested in the position. She is a registered democrat involved in partisan politics, but is not an activist and is not affiliated with interest groups. She asks $85 an hour for her work.
Ms. Flack moved and Mr. Harris seconded a motion to utilize Louella Pizzugi as a professional editor to write the final draft of the Committee report, if she is not involved with interest groups that have been involved in the Committee deliberations. The motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Lyons reported that he will be out of town next Friday and will rely on Mr. Davidson to chair the meeting.
Board listing and prioritization of causes and other factors for delays, including recommendations
Mr. Lyons presented a”straw man” recommendation regarding the Hart Now system category of the report, and a revision generated by Ms. Flack, proposing that precinct ballot count be recommended.
Mr. Harris repeated the position he stated last week that it is best to work with the Hart system for the next two years, to evaluate and watch for new technologies that may be generated during that time.
Mr. Davidson pointed out that the charge to the Committee is to recommend a solution to slow voting and reporting. Waiting for two years could be presented as an option.
After discussion, Mr. Taylor moved and Mr. Harbour seconded a motion to adopt as a preliminary recommendation the proposal suggested by Ms. Flack. The motion passed with 7 affirmative and 1 opposed.
In addition to the recommendation, a list of options considered, but not recommended were included. It was agreed that some kind of audit system is needed.
Mr. Harris questioned the accuracy of the statement “Assuming minimal damaged races and no write in votes.” As he reread a Hart memo recently, he found that the estimate of 24 to 28 hours required, to report voting results, did include damaged races and write in votes. After consulting the memo, that statement was struck from the draft.
Continuing to address reasons for delay and formulating recommendations, the Printing category was considered. Members continued the process used last week, writing items related to the category and recording them as they were agreed upon. Ms. Hall typed the information and it was projected onto a screen for all to see and respond. The first draft is as follows:
Concern was expressed and discussion took place around the quality of ballots, condition of the paper and ballot size.
Mr. Davidson agreed to generate a straw man recommendation regarding Printing and to send it electronically to members before the meeting next week.
It was concluded that a straw man recommendation should be generated for each category of the report, and assignments were made as follows:
The next meeting of the Elections Review Committee will be held on April 15 in the County Commissioners Conference room in the Court House at 1:00 p.m. The meeting will be chaired by Tom Davidson.
5. Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 5:25 p.m. on unanimous approval of a motion made by Mr. Harbour and seconded by Mr. Davidson.
______________________________ Recording Secretary
Return to ERC Agendas and Minutes
