MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
MAY 4, 2005
Chairperson Stutsman called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 9:07 a.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Mike Lehman, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Rod Sullivan.
DISCUSSION: VOTING SYSTEM REPLACEMENT
County Auditor Tom Slockett said that they are trying to optimize the County’s choices by doing the elections systems RFP. When the State contract comes out the County will be able to compare the RFPs sent with the State contract. Slockett explained that the RFP protects the County from having to pay more than the contract. The State contract will be issued May 16, 2005. Slockett said that he would like to figure out what equipment the County wants and set up a negotiating process to be ready to sign a contract by the time the State contract is out. He added that Counties are required to have their contracts signed by June 1, 2005. He suggested that Stutsman, Chappell, and he negotiate the contract. The County will receive a standard contract from the vendor, make changes, and resubmit the contract to the vendor. Slockett said that he and Stutsman would consult and negotiate, and that Stutsman would talk to other Board members and get opinions on preliminary decisions. Assistant County Attorney Andy Chappell will then review the contract before it is passed to the Board for approval. Slockett said that this all has to be done by June 1, 2005 to be reimbursed for the first wave and have the equipment available for the next election. The Auditor’s Office would like the equipment as soon as possible so that the public and pollworkers can get used to it and be ready for the Gubernatorial Election of 2006 and the Presidential of 2008.
Stutsman asked why Diebold isn’t listed on the chart presented by Auditor’s Office Elections Staff Member Mona Shaw. Slockett explained that Diebold did not submit an RFP, but could support Johnson County. Shaw explained that Sequoia also did not submit an RFP but has applied to be certified by the State, therefore the County could choose them. Slockett added that the Secretary of State expects to have Sequoia, Microvote, ES&S, and Diebold on the State contract. Microvote does not have a paper trail and previously stated that it has no intention of adding one. R. Sullivan said that there might be a good chance that they will disqualify themselves from the State contract. Slockett said that although Microvote has not done a lot of things to be on the State contract, they have not ruled out doing them. Stutsman asked for clarification on the State contract. Slockett said that the State negotiates contracts with vendors to allow Counties to purchase off of that contract at a lower rate than they might normally be able to. These sorts of contracts can apply to almost any major purchases a county or municipality would need to make, such as vehicles and office equipment. The County is not limited to vendors on the State contract, but they are limited to vendors that have been certified to comply with HAVA 2002 standards as well as to be used in Iowa. Slockett said that certifying for HAVA standards is much more difficult and time consuming than the State certification process.
Deputy Auditor Steve Miller went through the chart presented by Shaw. Miller explained that ES&S has a large presence in Iowa. Their equipment is simple and easy to use. The central count scanner is the Model 650. It reads 400 ballots a minute and identifies overvotes and write-ins. The machine is a top feed system and needs to be continually refilled when the ballots run out. The precinct scanner is the Model 100. It alerts to overvotes and undervotes as well. The Automark Terminal is the voter assisted equipment. There was not a working model with a voter verified paper trail at the presentation but they have presented it to Johnson County in the past. Miller said that there was discussion about the paper costs and they would need to make sure that it is all ironed out to avoid any hidden costs.
Slockett said that the ES&S central count machine stops if it encounters an overvote or undervote. Sequoia’s system diverted the ballots into different bins. The Automark is the system that marks a ballot. Instead of being a DRE, it marks the ballot and is tabulated the same way as the other votes. Slockett said that there are advantages to this because everyone uses the same ballots for recounts. He said that there are huge disadvantages for use of the system in satellites because all of the ballot styles have to be printed. In a primary election there would have to be 80 ballot styles available and there has to be an accounting system for the ballots with staff. He explained that with a DRE the ballot styles would be taken care of at satellites by a chip. He added that Johnson County has told the State that the County would prefer to use the DREs at satellite, but it would require a law change. The law change needed would have to allow the data to be stored in electronic format. Slockett said that the concerns about doing that would be answered with the paper audit trail on the DRE. He said that it would make it a lot easier on the setup, costs, and administration of satellite voting. There is multiple language capability on the Automark, and with 80 ballot styles if only two languages were used there would be 160 ballot styles required for use in the machine. Harney asked if the law change would take legislative action. Slockett said that it would need legislation, which is unlikely this year.
Harney asked about using ES&S paper stock. Slockett said that the ballots can be printed locally but it has to be on ES&S paper stock. Slockett said that there were problems with the ballots in Woodbury County and ES&S made arrangements with a local printer and had the ballots printed on blank stock. Contractually they would have to work it out so that Johnson County could use a local printer. Slockett said that they don’t know the present situation on that and would have to investigate it before a contract was signed. R. Sullivan asked if there were any problems for Woodbury County when they used the local printer. Slockett said that contrary to all of the warnings they had received from ES&S there were no problems with the locally printed ballots.
Deputy Auditor Julie Gilmere said that the DREs are just as capable of handicap accessibility as the Automark. Slockett said that they are better suited to multiple languages because although the screen could be displayed in another language the ballot itself would remain in English unless printed otherwise. He said that would not be the case with the voter-verified paper audit trail as it would print out in the other languages.
Neuzil asked how many counties ES&S supports. Gilmere said that they have 65 counties. Slockett said that ES&S has a long presence in Iowa. Many counties use the ES&S central count system. Diebold came in later and they have done a good job but their equipment has been much more modern than most Auditors are using. Stutsman said that there have also been more people enter the market. Slockett agreed. Stutsman said that ES&S has been around a long time, which is positive.
R. Sullivan said that it seems that there is debate between ES&S and Sequoia. Slockett said that when ES&S acquired Business Records Corporation they had such a broad range of equipment that it was considered to be monopolistic. They had to spin off the Optech equipment. He explained that Sequoia is using what would have been ES&S equipment if they hadn’t been forced to sell it.
Stutsman asked where ES&S corporate offices are located. Slockett said that the presenters came from Omaha. He added that the high speed scanners were produced in Omaha, but other equipment was produced elsewhere. Stutsman asked how they compare cost-wise. Slockett suggested that they go through all of the information and then compare costs later. He added that comparing just costs is not beneficial because not all of the systems include the same equipment.
Miller said that Sequoia’s Insight is the fourth generation Optech. They are certified and their machines are produced in Berkeley, California. The new prom packs can hold all of the election information like the current one can. The Edge is handicapped accessible and has a voter-verified paper audit trail and weighs about 45 pounds. The central count system is the Optical Scan 400C and ballots are fed from the bottom. This is beneficial because the operator can continually add to the pile of ballots without having to stop the machine. Miller said that they thought that Sequoia’s presenters were all former ES&S employees and it seemed they believed they were in direct competition with ES&S. Miller added that Sequoia did not respond to the RFP. He added that there had been some discussion as to whether Sequoia could print ballots. Slockett said that Sequoia has ballot on demand technology. There is also no need to rely on them for paper stock because any printer can print the ballots. Stutsman asked if ballot on demand would allow a satellite site to print ballots as they are needed. Slockett said that in theory one could, but as of right now the printers that need to be used are of very high quality and are not designed for portability. In the future when technology makes the printers easier to handle, ballot on demand could even be used in polling places so any ballot style can be pulled up for any voter. Accupoll designed their system with the idea that in California some day any voter would be able to vote at any polling place in the state. For now, the ballot on demand would be used to produce absentee ballots. Stutsman said that ballot on demand would be a great advantage.
Neuzil said that Sequoia made the point that the equipment is very similar to that being used right now and that there would be very little training needed. He asked if everyone is happy with the current equipment. Slockett said that they are happy with it, it has lasted a long time and has performed well, but it is old and needs a lot of patching up. It is also very heavy and the new machines are much lighter. R. Sullivan said that assuming that the new equipment will last as long as the current equipment, it is important to think about future updates and requirements. The machines will have to be able to expand as the laws change in the future. Lehman said that many companies talked about being able to send results over a modem and that is not necessarily needed right now, but might be in the future.
Gilmere pointed out that ES&S is the only company that currently has all certifications. Stutsman said that she is assuming that all the companies will receive correct certification. Slockett said that is a pretty good assumption. Lehman suggested they try to eliminate at least one company. Miller said that getting easy to use equipment is important.
Miller said that presently no one in Iowa is using Accupoll. The Accupoll presenter came from California. The company has been in business for about four years. Slockett said that Accupoll had the most impressive technology. Stutsman asked if other places are using the equipment. Slockett said that Pittsburgh, places in California, and others use the equipment. Miller said that the technology was also the most versatile system. The computers are assembled in North Carolina and use basic computer parts. Ballots can be printed in house or by another source. The machines weigh about 45 pounds with the battery. Accupoll did respond to the RFP. Miller added that the system is operated by a smart card. For absentee voters the ballots can be printed in house and then scanned using basic off the shelf business scanners.
Harney said that the process wasn’t explained very well. Stutsman agreed but said that when she looked at the sheets it didn’t appear to be so intimidating. Slockett said that one of the problems with the scanner is that ballots could not be diverted into separate bins according to overvotes or write-ins. Stutsman asked if that was something they may develop in the future. Slockett said that there was no mention of such in discussion but that doesn’t mean it won’t happen. Stutsman said that the presentation seemed to account for everything that could happen and it was evident that they had thought about it a lot. Shaw said that she liked the Accupoll solution for provisional ballots. She said that it is important that the Accupoll technology can store provisional ballot information on Election Day separate from the other election results. Slockett said that Accupoll allows the provisional voter to vote on the DRE like anyone else and then it is stored but not counted until the provisional ballot board makes a decision. R. Sullivan said that as far as ongoing costs, Accupoll allows regular 8 1/2” x 11” paper and over time that should be less expensive. Shaw said that the down side is that the system can only print on one side. She added that the components of the system would be very cost effective because they can be swapped out for common components found at an office supply store. Erickson said that all of the mechanics of the machine are electronic and replacement parts would not have to be purchased from the vendor. Errors would be limited to voter errors and part failure. He added that it is the physical transportation of the machines to and from the polling places that leads to the failure of machines. Slockett said that having multiple pages for a ballot is a concern. Pages can get lost or missed easily when being mailed. He said another problem is that printing things in office seems like the cheapest way to do things, but that in mass quantities offset printing can be less expensive than in-house costs. Stutsman said that this system could bring big changes to the voting system and they need to think about how that will impact the public and the poll workers.
R. Sullivan asked if election law needs to be changed to address the smart cards. Slockett said that it is not addressed directly in the law at all so there should not need to be any changes. R. Sullivan asked if they anticipate any problems with people walking off with cards. Shaw said that the technology is secure and if the card is taken out of the polling place it is not going to be of any use to the voter. Slockett said that Stanford computer experts have said that a hacker could use the cards to allow people to vote multiple times. He added that these are all theoretical problems that have never actually occurred, but are slight possibilities.
Slockett said that there are also problems with some handicapped people getting the cards in and out of the machine. Stutsman said that getting the cards back would have to be part of the new pollworker training. Gilmere pointed out that there are two types of cards, one that the voters use and one that the poll workers use. Slockett said that they are the same physical cards, but they are programmed differently. Stutsman said that with the Accupoll system there seemed to be less chance of someone walking off with a card because of the extra step of going to the scanner. Erickson said that the Accupoll presentation seemed to be built around the fact that they did not have a central count scanner. Stutsman asked if the central count scanner could be purchased from ES&S to supplement the Accupoll equipment. Gilmere said that the problem with that is the entire software program would have to be purchased from ES&S to run the central count machine. R. Sullivan said that perhaps there are scanners that are not intended for election work that could be used. Stutsman said that they would have to be certified by the State.
Miller said that Matt Parrott is selling Diebold equipment and that the machines are currently used in Iowa. Both Linn and Blackhawk Counties use this equipment. The equipment is smart card operated. The precinct scan system weighs 13 pounds. There is no central count system but they suggest using seven or eight precinct count systems. Diebold did not respond to the RFP. Provisional ballots cannot be cast on the DRE. Miller said that the paper scanner would be about $5,000, the DRE unit is $4,000, the software is $55,000 and includes the ballot on demand system and a printer. It would be about $9,000 per precinct for the two pieces of equipment. The $55,000 is a lump sum for the whole County and there is an 18% yearly licensing fee. Slockett said that they would need additional units for absentee and back up machines. Shaw said that would be just one DRE per precinct. Slockett said that no DREs are included for satellite voting. He added that the numbers are rough but that they give some idea as to cost.
Slockett said that the Diebold DRE is lightweight and similar to ES&S’s equipment. He said that it would be good to have the lightweight systems because they could be lifted easily and rearranged for the voter, or even taken out to the car for curbside voting. Neuzil asked how much the current equipment weighs. Slockett said that they weigh about 80 pounds. Neuzil said that even the 45 pound equipment would be an improvement. Slockett said that if the accessible unit was taken to the curb then there would not be an accessible unit in the precinct for others to use. He said that they need to think about procedure and put some guidelines together.
Harney said that Diebold seems to be the most user friendly and the easiest to set up for the poll workers. Neuzil said that the scanner has a lot of pieces. Stutsman said that was Accupoll. Slockett said that ES&S and Diebold are very similar. The scanners are both suitcase type machines once the top is taken off. One difference is that the Diebold system has a diverter in the box. Stutsman said that she liked that. Slockett said that Sequoia said that to fully test the equipment the computer part would have to be installed to make sure that the diverter portion was working. In the Sequoia system the diverter is in the top unit. Slockett said that in terms of the amount of equipment in a precinct there wasn’t a big difference between ES&S and Diebold. He said that Diebold seemed to demonstrate less equipment but that was because they do not have a central count. He said to get the same count abilities it would take one or two of the ES&S central count machines and seven or eight of the Diebold counters.
Neuzil asked which companies have a central count and which do not. Slockett said that Sequoia and ES&S have it and the others don’t. R. Sullivan said that it seemed that the Diebold representative was a bit evasive about using DREs at satellite. He said that she said State law doesn’t allow it and moved on, but that he thought they couldn’t do that. Slockett said that he thought they would be able to just as ES&S can, provided the law is changed. He added that both ES&S and Diebold have ballot on demand.
Stutsman said that in the last presidential election the Diebold CEO stated that he was going to see that George Bush was elected no matter what. Stutsman said that Diebold is headquartered in Texas, and she doesn’t care who the CEO is rooting for, it is inappropriate. Stutsman added that ethically she didn’t know if she could support buying voting equipment from Diebold. Shaw agreed that it has been a big controversy.
Neuzil said that cost is an important factor but that since the central count is so important that may rule out some companies. Shaw said that their technology also rules out voting a provisional ballot on the DRE. Stutsman said none of them are perfect but it would be nice if they could piece together the perfect system. Erickson said that if a recount is ordered it would take forever to count on something other than a central count system. Harney asked if the current machines have diverters. Slockett said yes.
Slockett said that if there is a consensus he would like to proceed so that they can decide if the issue should remain on the May 5, 2005 formal agenda. Harney said that there are not prices for all of them yet. Slockett said that isn’t so important because they can start negotiating and they won’t know the State contract prices until May 16, 2005. He added that they can’t sign a contract until after the State contract is made public. Lehman said that he would like to see at least a ranking or a recommendation come out of today’s meeting.
Recessed at 10:15 a.m.; reconvened at 10:25 a.m.
Slockett said that ES&S did not use the smart card, and that the bigger cartridges may be better because people will be less likely to take them and they might be easier to grab. He added that they are re-programmable. Stutsman asked if any of the staff talked to Doug Jones. Slockett said that he has not really talked to him. Shaw said that he has a very extensive website and that she will get the Board the URL. Slockett said that the company they know the most about is ES&S because they are the current vendor. He added that the equipment is so different it is difficult to compare with current equipment. Miller said that they are paying roughly $12,000 a year for maintenance of software and machines. Lehman reiterated that this is going to be a switch between mechanical parts and electronic parts.
Stutsman asked if the group is ready to eliminate some vendors. Stutsman said that she would eliminate Diebold and Accupoll. She said that there are too many loose ends with Accupoll, but that she really liked the technology. R. Sullivan said that if Accupoll had a central counting system it would be an easy choice. Erickson said that there would have to be seven or eight of the machines at each polling place. Slockett said that the other difference is that the technology is in the booth and it would be like having an all DRE election. He added that they would need to make sure enough machines were purchased to allow for all of the voters to be able to vote at a swift pace. There were not enough machines purchased in Ohio for the last Presidential Election and that is what led to the long lines. Slockett explained that with this system ballots cannot run out and that is a good thing.
Harney said that he would like to see the cost figures for the companies. Slockett said that they don’t have figures for Diebold. Harney said that he thought figures had been presented earlier. Miller said that they were just ball park figures. He said that the paper scanner is $5,000, the DRE is $4,000, and the software is $55,000. Gilmere pointed out that there was nothing about support in those prices. Shaw said that before maintenance or DREs are purchased from Diebold the cost would be around $600,000. Stutsman said that if they are going to use cost as a criterion they need accurate figures. Harney said that he would like to have a ballpark figure. Harney said that Diebold seems the most user friendly but he wasn’t aware of Stutsman’s ethical concerns. Slockett said that Diebold and ES&S are competitive and he would be surprised if the prices were much different. Stutsman asked if they had numbers on Sequoia. Slockett replied that they do not.
Stutsman asked if they are comfortable saying that nobody is interested in Accupoll. The Board agreed. Slockett agreed and also said that he was very impressed with Accupoll. R. Sullivan said that they were all impressed with Accupoll and that it might be nice to give Accupoll feedback about their reservations so possibly in the future they can be of consideration again. Miller said that besides Stutsman’s reservations, Diebold doesn’t have a central count system and that is an important thing. Slockett said that the decision can be reviewed before a contract is signed. Harney said that he wants to eliminate companies that do not have a central count system because that is essential. Stutsman said that would eliminate two companies, Diebold and Accupoll.
Stutsman expressed interest in Sequoia’s central count and the ballot on demand. Harney agreed. Slockett said that the simplicity of the ES&S system is something to think about. Stutsman said that the paper would have to be negotiated with ES&S. Slockett said that they will calculate election costs based on costs that ES&S adds. Slockett said that they don’t know whether it is a problem or how much per ballot it costs. Slockett said that he isn’t ready to rule ES&S out based on that.
R. Sullivan asked if combinations of equipment from different vendors could be used. Slockett said that one of the features of the software that is so important is that each company’s software is designed so that an election is programmed once. By combining different companies it would be like running two elections. Shaw said that they also don’t know what kind of support Sequoia can provide. Slockett said that Johnson County has a highly sophisticated group of voters. If there are problems, Johnson County wants people who are good at addressing that, and that should be taken into consideration. Slockett said that the responses to the RFP should also be taken into account.
Neuzil asked to run through the typical voting experience with the current system for the voter and the employee and what it would be like for them with ES&S’s system. Slockett said that for a voter voting at the polls today there would be a paper ballot. There would be little difference for them with the new system. The marks may be different and the ballot would be a different shape. The voter would still feed the ballot into the machine. Slockett said that for a handicapped voter the process would be very different. They could vote on an accessible device with the new system with no assistance, whereas now they need an assistant to help them vote a regular ballot. Slockett said that it is a huge benefit to the people that need it, and it is the reason to go through this process. R. Sullivan said that it is worth noting that voters with disabilities are going to have a huge change regardless of whether the County chooses a State system or does its own RFP. Slockett agreed.
Neuzil asked for advantages and disadvantages between ES&S and Sequoia at a satellite voting site. Neuzil said that Sequoia is pretty much what the County uses currently and he would like to know what the differences would be if the County would choose ES&S. Erickson said that Sequoia is what the County currently has. At satellite voting there is a box full of ballots and a laptop to see if the voter is registered. Slockett said that while Sequoia is proven technology, it is much older technology. It weighs 45 pounds per unit. The computer for ES&S without its case weighs 12 pounds. Slockett said that the Diebold equipment would be a lot easier to transport at 26 pounds with its case. He said that is the basic difference, but otherwise they all three have the same capabilities.
Neuzil asked if anyone had seen the 400C work for Sequoia. Slockett said that he hadn’t seen it. Gilmere said that Polk County has it. Slockett said that Dubuque County contracted to use it during the Presidential Election and had problems with it. The Dubuque County Elections Deputy Tom O’Neill pointed out during the demonstration that the unit is older technology. The unit was limited to 70 ballot styles and Dubuque County had 72. Not only did it not work, it didn’t give an indication that it wasn’t working. It accepted the two additional ballot styles and added them into other totals. They figured it out and had to call Sequoia to solve the problem. Slockett said that during the demonstration Sequoia didn’t know if the problem had been solved, which made him nervous. Neuzil said that if the proposals are fairly close to each other then they get back to the cost factor. He said that if one is 300,000 or 500,000 more than another one realistically they need to look at costs. Gilmere said that if they are looking at the ES&S ballot counter, the DRE, and the central count, the bid received by the County includes the Auto Mark. The County would have to receive a new bid, which would be lower. Shaw said that the Auto Mark is $400,000. Slockett said that they can discuss prices later and still proceed with negotiating the price and contract, and be ready to sign one. He said that once the State contract prices are in they will be able to carefully consider them as well. He said that he is just as concerned with prices as the Board is, and if it is a factor they should consider it. He said that the quality of service and the familiarity of the vendor with the State of Iowa are also large considerations.
Stutsman asked if the group is ready for a consensus. She said that approval of a vendor does not have to be put on the May 5, 2005 formal Board of Supervisors agenda if they aren’t ready to decide.
Harney said that the only downfall he had with ES&S was that they did a lot of criticizing of the other companies. Gilmere and Slockett explained that it was Sequoia who did that. Slockett said that ES&S was very professional. Gilmere said that Sequoia kept mentioned ES&S because that was who they were criticizing. Neuzil said that if people have attended ISAC they are familiar with ES&S. Miller said that ES&S did the most professional presentation. Neuzil said that he is getting the impression that the Auditor’s Office thinks that ES&S is the best choice. Miller said that he hasn’t vocalized it, but it would be his opinion. Slockett said that they have not required any support and training for the County ever. He said that they would have to consider how much of that is needed, and discuss it carefully with the Board. Slockett said that with the new equipment they might need support and training.
Neuzil asked if Slockett has the opinion that Sequoia is the closest to what the County currently has. He said that Sequoia made that a very strong pitch, however, election day and pre-election day with the ES&S equipment seem the same. Gilmere agreed that it is the same. Shaw said that the reason she gives ES&S a slight edge is that the equipment is more portable, including the optical scanners. Harney said that special pens have to be used with ES&S. Slockett said that no optical scanners or black and white copiers will read highlighters. Gilmere said that ES&S and Sequoia’s optical scanners do the same thing, but they each have their advantages. Gilmere said that ES&S’s equipment is very light and portable, but Sequoia had bins that could be removed and used as transfer cases. She said that Sequoia’s DRE was older technology and heavy. ES&S’s DRE was light and portable and a little bit more accessible for the handicapped. Both companies central count machines are supposed to count at the same speed. Sequoia’s had a bottom feed which would keep the ballots going a little quicker, but they didn’t bring it to show the County. Slockett said that the County would like to have a backup for everything they do. Gilmere said that ES&S provided a good bid on purchasing two central count machines. Shaw said that ES&S did an amazingly professional presentation which is encouraging.
Neuzil said that the equipment has to be accurate, easy to use, HAVA and ADA compliant, cost effective, support and maintenance have to be provided, and what the Auditor would like to use. Neuzil said that the Auditor’s Office is the office that is going to have to deal with the equipment. Gilmere said that she is more comfortable with ES&S because all of her questions are answered. Erickson said that the pollworkers are going to be taking the equipment to polls and it will be easier for them to take the ES&S equipment. Slockett said that the DRE can be taken in two pieces, at 12 pounds each. Erickson said that he won’t be setting equipment up at the polls anymore.
Stutsman asked if the Board is ready to come to a consensus. Neuzil said that he would be comfortable moving forward with ES&S. Lehman and R. Sullivan agreed. Harney said that he felt that Sequoia did a better presentation but he doesn’t have a problem going with ES&S. Stutsman said that she supports going with ES&S. R. Sullivan suggested that the Auditor’s Office give the presenters feedback. Stutsman asked how the Auditor’s Office feels. Gilmere and Miller chose ES&S. Erickson said that he would choose ES&S because the equipment is smaller and lighter weight. Shaw and Slockett agreed. The Board and Auditor's Office agreed on ES&S. Stutsman said that the item would be on the May 5, 2005 formal agenda to begin negotiations.
Stutsman asked if the Board is OK with her working with Chappell and Slockett on contract negotiations. The Board agreed.
Adjourned at 11:02 a.m.
Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor
By Casie Kadlec, Recording Secretary