MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE IOWA STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY AUDITORS ELECTION STANDING COMMITTEE:
MARCH 23, 2010
(2nd Distribution, subject to approval at a later meeting of the Committee)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Election Day Voter Registration
Mailed Absentee Ballot Cost Savings
Additional Future Cost Savings
Administrative Code 721—21.303 (53)
Legislation/Legislative Priorities
Elections Related ISACA Web Site Developments Regarding www.iowaauditors.org
Temporary Appointment of Additional Members to the Elections Standing Committee
Johnson County Auditor Tom Slockett called the Iowa State Association of County Auditors Elections Standing Committee to order in the Sioux City Room of the Marriott Hotel in Des Moines, Iowa at 4:05 p.m. Members present were: Johnson County Auditor Tom Slockett, Marion County Auditor Jake Grandia, Page County Auditor Judy Clark, Woodbury County Auditor Pat Gill (arrived at 4:28 p.m.), and Floyd County Auditor Gloria Carr; Absent: Story County Deputy Auditor Danielle Dunham. Also present were: Butler County Auditor Holly Fokkena, Jones County Auditor Janine Sulzner (arrived at 4:21 p.m.), Clay County Auditor Marjorie Pitts (arrived at 4:30 p.m) Cerro Gordo County Auditor Ken Kline, Cerro Gordo Deputy Auditor Sandy Shonka, and Secretary of State Elections Director Sarah Reisetter.
Unless otherwise noted, all actions were taken unanimously.
Kline recommended that the committee focus on the slides that had substantive changes. The committee agreed and Kline began reviewing slides that had been changed. Kline guided the committee through the changes that were made consistent with discussion in the February 26, 2010 meeting as well as changes that were made without discussion by the committee. As the committee progressed through the slides, additional changes were made. They are noted below.
Slide 12 was changed. The text “Under Iowa law, absentee ballots in the 2010 Primary Election are counted on Election Day” was deleted and replaced with “For the Primary Election, the absentee precinct elected officials cannot begin counting absentee ballots until Election Day.” A calendar indicating Election Day was added. No other changes were made.
No additional changes were noted for the Primary Election Ballot presentation.
Jones County Auditor Janine Sulzner entered at 4:21 p.m.
Grandia suggested that the slides be consistent across the presentations. One other presentation addresses what to do when a ballot has been spoiled and he recommended that they be consistent in the language between the two presentations.
Slide 17 was changed to maintain consistency throughout the various presentations. The text “Absentee voters should write ‘Spoiled Ballot’ on the Return Carrier Envelope, return it to the County Auditor, and ask for a new ballot” was removed. A slide was added between slides 17 and 18 which reads as follows:
In the 2010 Primary Election, an absentee voter who has made an error on the ballot and wants a new absentee ballot should:
· insert the ballot in the Return Carrier Envelope,
· write “Spoiled Ballot” on the Envelope,
· return it to the County Auditor,
· and request a replacement absentee ballot.
Slockett suggested the voter returning the spoiled ballot should indicate that they want a replacement ballot. Otherwise how does the office know whether they should be sent a replacement ballot. Kline responded that the slide tells them to ask for a replacement ballot. Slockett said should the slide say that the voter should write it on the Return Carrier Envelope. Slockett thought that more instructions should be given besides “request”. He asked if the voter should call or come in to the Auditor’s Office to request a new ballot. He thought it would be helpful if the voter writes that they request a replacement ballot otherwise the office has to call to find out whether the voter wants a replacement ballot. He added that if the voter gets a replacement ballot and they didn’t want it they are going to be upset. Slockett said that it would help his staff if they wrote on the envelope “spoiled – send replacement”.
Reisetter expressed that her concern is having consistent information. The absentee instructions that go with the ballots at this point in time say “write Spoiled Ballot”. She added that Iowa Code 53.21 states that the voter should write Spoiled Ballot. She said that she is amenable to adding something like that to the absentee voting instructions in the future. Reisetter said that she is unsure how many people will see the presentations and follow the instructions as laid out in the PowerPoint when they are asking for a ballot replacement. She said she feels that Iowa Code 53.21 puts an affirmative duty on the voter to do something to get a replacement ballot and not just have the ballot automatically replaced by the Auditor’s Office. Her main concern is putting something in the presentation that contradicts the absentee voting instructions that are mailed with every ballot. She doesn’t want to add an additional requirement in the presentation that is not included in the instructions. Slockett verified that Reisetter feels that currently the Auditor’s Office should not send a replacement ballot or call and ask if they want a replacement, if they should just assume that they did not want to vote absentee. Reisetter clarified that if they request a replacement ballot then they can get a replacement ballot under the law.
Slockett pointed out that if the voter were to just write on the envelope to send a replacement ballot it would save time and tax payer money because then the Auditor’s Office would know to send it without further investigation. Slockett said he would like the instruction added in the future. Reisetter said that she is willing to look into adding that.
Woodbury County Auditor Pat Gill entered at 4:28 p.m.
Clay County Auditor Marjorie Pitts entered at 4:30 p.m.
No other changes were made to this presentation.
No additional changes were noted for the Election Day Voter Registration presentation.
Changes were made to slide 8 which consisted of changing the last line from “for the next two to four years” to “for the calendar year.” No other changes were made.
Slide 3 was changed to include an additional bullet point that precedes the existing bullet points. The new bullet point reads “insert the ballot in the Return Carrier Envelope.” No other changes were made.
Slide 6 was changed in the following manner. The first bullet point was changed from “put the voted ballot inside the Secrecy Envelope” to “put the voted ballot in the Secrecy Envelope, if provided”. In the second bullet point “inside” was changed to “in”. No other changes were made.
No additional changes were noted for the Receiving Absentee Ballots presentation.
No additional changes were noted for the Counting Absentee Ballots presentation.
On slide 6, the text “held in the next two to four years,” was deleted and replaced with “held during the calendar year”. No other changes were made.
No additional changes were noted for the Health Care Facilities presentation.
No additional changes were noted for the Voters with Disabilities presentation.
No additional changes were noted for the Provisional Ballots presentation.
No additional changes were noted for the Election Results presentation.
The text of Slide 8 was deleted and replaced. The previous text read “The voting process will take more time for a voter who needs to register to vote or to update the voter’s registration at the polls on Election Day.” The new text reads “Voters who need to register at the polls on Election Day or to update the voter’s registration (such as a change of name or address) should be aware the voting process will take more time.” No other changes were made.
No additional changes were noted for the Absentee Voting Questions presentation.
No additional changes were noted for the Additional Questions presentation.
Kline said that he appreciates the involvement of the committee as this is a long process. He added that he brought along the necessary equipment to record the audio. He said that he has talked to Sioux County Auditor Lois Huitink who is willing to do the audio recording for the presentations. Kline brought up the issue of the distribution of CDs. In the past, he made copies of the presentation in both CD and DVD format and distributed them to every county. He said that is a possible way to distribute the presentations this time. Slockett said that they have talked about having the expenses reimbursed but they have yet to discuss what the expenses are going to be. Fokkena asked why the presentations can’t be emailed. She wondered if the file is too big. Kline responded that some people may want to use it in different formats. He is not sure of the file size issues. He said they just made the copies in the past. Reisetter suggested that they try to see if it can be downloaded from the website if it is posted there. She suggested trying to download the version that is currently uploaded to the website. Fokkena asked if each county is going to be charged for the disk they receive. Kline clarified that the expectation was that ISACA would reimburse for those expenses and the individual counties would not be charged. He said that last time Cerro Gordo County absorbed the cost. Fokkena said she doesn’t have a problem paying. Carr said she doesn’t see it being a problem to get the expense reimbursement approved. Kline asked if an email should be sent to all counties informing them that they will be receiving the copy of the presentations and if a particular county does not intend to use it they should inform the committee and thereby save the cost of making that county a copy. Kline pointed out that some counties just may not have the capabilities to use the presentations. Gill added that it will be accessible from the Secretary of State’s website. Kline added that it will be on www.iowaauditors.org as well. Fokkena said that she would prefer that people be directed to www.iowaauditors.org because that is ISACA’s public face. If people are not using the joint website it makes it hard to market it. Kline said that he is fine with publishing it on the auditor’s webpage as well as a copy being posted on the Secretary of State’s webpage.
Slockett said he had a discussion with the Johnson County Information Technology Department regarding the large file downloads. He said the most fool proof way to do that is using FTP. He said another way to do it is by putting it on a website and downloading it from there. He asked if when they just tried it the sound didn’t match up. Fokkena said that when they looked many months later something happened that the sound isn’t synced up quite right. Kline said that the Voter Education Project is also available in PDF files like he had sent out to the auditors to review. The CDs allow the slides to be looped continuously so that the presentations can be put on a kiosk or a laptop. He said the file for the TV broadcasting has to be converted to a Flash file. He said in Flashpoint they have adjusted the sequencing and the timing. Kline explained that the actual presentations are PowerPoint and are a lot bigger than what the committee has currently seen. He explained that some of the complete slides they see in the PDF are actually 7 different slides. He said that is probably why they burned the copies on CD.
Kline asked what the committee’s preference is. Whether the CDs would be distributed on a request basis or whether they would automatically be sent unless the county indicates that they choose not to use it. Fokkena liked the second option. She said that an email can be sent that says if the committee doesn’t hear from the county by ‘X’ date then the CD will automatically be sent. Kline said that the email should probably come from Slockett as he is the chair of the committee. Slockett said he would be happy to do it. Grandia said that he thinks that the CDs should be sent if they are requested. He pointed out that some people put off responding and may not want the CD but get sent it anyway because they did not respond. He noted that someone would then need to coordinate the list. He added that this method would cut down on the cost as well.
Kline reported the estimated cost is $1.00 each for every CD and DVD, plus postage to mail a set of each to 98 counties. This would be a total of $196 to purchase and produce one CD and DVD for each county, plus the postage.
Motion made and seconded to present the costs to ISACA to request reimbursement.
Slockett introduced Jones County Auditor Janine Sulzner. He announced that she has been able to reduce costs of mailing absentee ballots significantly. Sulzner said that she was told that the committee would be talking about ideas for cost savings so she wanted to share some of the things that she has done to reduce costs.
Sulzner said that Jones County has been using tri-folded ballots and they have not had a problem with them. This even includes putting absentee ballots through the Central Count Scanner. She said that using the tri-fold ballot allows her to send out a sizable ballot packet (she held up an example) for $0.61. She said she is also able to have it returned for $0.61. She added that she has the Iowa Prison Industries make all of her envelopes. For the General Election she has them custom printed so that it has the county name and the election date on the envelope.
Sulzner said that they have found a way to use excess envelopes to avoid throwing them away. She added if the return envelope can fit in a particular size envelope (she held up an example) that it can be mailed for the letter rate. She said anything larger than that has to be charged at the next size rate. By keeping it within the letter rate size Jones County was able to save a considerable amount of money. She indicated a sheet that she passed out to committee members that has the different costs that her county incurs when mailing out absentee ballots.
Sulzner told the committee about some convenience features that her staff particularly likes. She said that on their delivery envelopes they get seals that do not require any licking; they just need to be stuck closed. Reisetter asked if there has ever been a problem with the pre-gummed seals drying up. Sulzner said that the envelopes they have in front of them as an example were purchased in August 2008 and they still stick. Sulzner explained that the secrecy envelopes had to be trimmed down a little bit in order to fit in the letter rate size envelopes.
Sulzner said that the sheet she passed out also contains some postage information. She told the committee about how Business Reply Mail (BRM) permits from the United States Postal Service (USPS) help to save costs on every card that is sent and returned. If a county purchases a BRM permit it can be used for all mailings. Slockett asked Sulzner if she is familiar with what is being done to reduce costs in Black Hawk County since the rates for that county are so low. Sulzner commented that volume plays a role in Black Hawk County’s rates. Slockett noted that the highest cost for Black Hawk County is the return fee. Sulzner explained that the handling fee for returns is $0.71 and that is just the handling fee and does not include the postage.
Carr asked if Prison Industries could also make a voter registration card. Sulzner confirmed that they do. Sulzner said they don’t get them from Prison Industries because of problems they have had in the past. Reisetter said that she believes that Black Hawk County sorts theirs by zip code for the county wide mailing. The presorting helps. Sulzner said that Jones County uses a company in Cedar Rapids called Mailing Services. Slockett said that Black Hawk County Deputy Auditor Kyle Jensson has an understanding worked out with the postmaster that also facilitates this. He said not every postmaster may make such an arrangement.
Slockett said that he had been hoping that Pitney Bowes Account Manager Robin Adams would be in attendance but unfortunately she was unable to work it into her schedule. He added that she would be happy to come discuss additional future cost savings with them another time. Slockett said that she has been working on cutting costs. He said that Pitney Bowes sells a machine that actually stuffs envelopes and does a lot of the manual work that the auditor’s office does. Gill stated that he was familiar with the machine and is impressed with its capabilities. Slockett said that Adams justifies the cost of the machine by saying that it pays for itself over time by lowering postage costs. He said she has quite a bit of information and she gave him an envelope from the State of Washington as an example. Slockett explained that cost of mail-in elections is really important in Washington and Oregon. Slockett called up the Johnson County Auditor’s website on the overhead to show a picture of the envelope. He explained how the envelope has a special flap which helps reduce per ballot mailing costs.
Reisetter pointed out that some changes may need to be made regarding how absentee ballots are to be mailed out.
Slockett said that he sent information regarding Senate File 283. It was introduced in 2001 but was not acted on. It eliminates the need for separate envelopes thereby reducing the number of envelopes needed by one. He said it is something the auditors might want to think about and work with the Secretary of State on. He said he thinks it will save a lot of money if this were to be passed. He said he doesn’t know if the file needs much work. He hasn’t looked into it but it is already out there. He said it looks good just glancing at it. Fokkena asked if this is something the Secretary of State’s Office is willing to do. Reisetter said that she can talk to Secretary of State Michael Mauro regarding it. Carr said that she thinks it would be good to get the Secretary of State to support it if it were coming from ISACA. Clark said that it seems like there has been greater success if it is supported by the Secretary of State.
Slockett said that the way they found S.F. 283 was to search “Return Carrier Envelopes” under the Iowa Administrative Code. He said it then shows the administrative codes as well as S.F. 283. Reisetter said it can also be found by looking at the General Assembly website and looking at the archives. Slockett said you have to know which year if you search the archives.
Slockett asked if the Elections Standing Committee wants to act on that. He thinks it would be good to have the committee go on record in favor of pursuing this. Clark said that it is great to say they want to pursue it, but in that pursuit they should work to develop the proposal through the process. Slockett asked if the committee would like to state that they are in favor of looking into this and working with the Secretary of State’s Office and the legislative subcommittee to lower costs.
Motion by Grandia, second by Gill, to go on record in favor of modifying, if necessary, and pursuing S.F. 283 together with the Secretary of State.
Slockett said that Administrative Code Section 721—21.303 (53) implements the Iowa Code section requiring the separate envelopes. He said that he included that as a text file in the email that he sent.
Slockett asked Reisetter to discuss any legislative items that she wished to talk about. Reisetter added that she can also answer any questions that the committee might have.
Reisetter said that the double election board elimination bill was signed by Governor Culver on March 19, 2010. She asked if any counties used double election boards. She said that Madison County used the double election board last year for a tie vote and there were concerns that improprieties were happening when the ballots were being counted. That incident led to the drafting of this bill. The Secretary of State’s Office was contacted about it. Reisetter suggested that rather than eliminating the use of hand counted paper ballots for anything, to allow people in the jurisdiction to petition to allow the use of hand counted paper ballots. Reisetter said that equipment can be used for all elections.
Slockett stated that a double election board was once a necessity in order to have the results available in a timely manner. Now with the current state of technology it is no longer necessary. Reisetter added that hand counted paper ballots can be used when turn out is going to be low so the rationale for needing another board to come in early to start counting has gone away since hand counted ballots are not used in high turnout elections. Slockett added that it was for low turn outs or when there may have been one item on the ballot making tabulation easy and saving on printing costs.
Reisetter said that bill has passed and is effective on enactment.
Reisetter addressed H.F. 2470. She said that bill did not make it out of caucus and was taken off the House of Representatives’ debate schedule. The bill will not be going anywhere this year. She added she doesn’t think there would be enough support for it to go anywhere even if it had made it to the debate schedule. She said very little in the bill had to do with election procedures. Slockett asked if some of the items in the bill are things that the committee needs to discuss for the future. Reisetter asked if he meant if there were items that are going to come back before the legislature in the future. Slockett responded that the committee liked one of the items in the bill which was the elimination of a reason for needing an absentee ballot. Reisetter confirmed and said that was one of the provisions in the bill that the Secretary of State’s Office did not have any problem with. Reisetter said that is really just a technical thing. Most people have the ability to get an absentee ballot if they request one. Slockett said the language is confusing and he thinks it would be a good clean up item in the future.
Slockett pointed out that there was another provision in H.F. 2470 that prohibited precinct officials from requesting identification to vote. Gill clarified what existing language says. Slockett said that there was language in the bill that would not allow the precinct official to look at identification. Reisetter said that is how she read it as well but thought it was a poorly written statement. Slockett said his understanding is that it was done that way intentionally because there was a particular precinct during a special election where the precinct officials were not using proper procedures and were checking identification for every single voter. He added that is the kind of thing that the committee should follow up on. Slockett gave an example of how checking identification could be used to discriminate against some voters and how that could result in a challenge, however not having the ability to check identification in the law could also lead to problems. Gill clarified that is why the challenge is available. Reisetter explained that this provision was brought up because the existing provision was being relied on to instruct precinct officials to ask every single person who comes into the polling place for identification. The current provision allows the precinct official to ask for the identification of anyone who is unknown to them. In the community there is bi-partisan support for that to not be happening. Every single person should not be required to show identification in order to vote. What is really desired is that precinct officials should be able to ask for identification before they take the next step of officially challenging the right of that particular person to vote.
Slockett confirmed that currently the precinct official can ask for the identification if they have a valid reason. Reisetter explained it is if that person is unknown to them they are able to ask for identification. She added that the provision is quite vague. Gill explained how this provision has affected elections in his county.
Slockett asked if Gill agrees that the provision does need clarification. He asked if the understanding is that there was never an intent to prohibit the precinct election officials from asking for identification. Reisetter said the intention is if people are on the rolls as an active voter don’t ask every single person for an I.D. The end intent after committee and subcommittee meetings on the bill was that the consensus was to allow them to continue to ask in some situations to avoid having to go to an official challenge. Reisetter said one of the amendments to the bill addressed when a voter is listed in the rolls as an active voter. Slockett said the bill actually prohibited asking for an I.D. from anyone listed on the voter rolls and the problem with that is, how does one know that individual is the person they are representing themselves to be if you can’t ask for I.D. He thinks that if asking for identification is prohibited there will be a concern that people who are not valid voters are actually voting. He said he thinks the way it is now is pretty good and clarification should occur if it is being abused.
Reisetter addressed H.F. 2516. She said that is a bill that came up at the very last minute. It basically says that any county that has been declared a disaster area can hold an election to raise taxes any Tuesday in the five years following the disaster declaration. It is chipping away at the special election restrictions. Reisetter said she doesn’t believe this bill is going anywhere either. Her understanding is that some legislators think it just makes it easier to raise taxes and they are not in favor of that. Additionally other people are not interested in seeing those special election dates go away. Reisetter said an amendment is being worked on to try to say that the bonds have to be directly related to disaster recovery or the funds that are raised must go to that purpose as well. Also, instead of putting a time limit of five years after declaration, they discussed making it a set date so it is not in the laws forever.
Reisetter brought H.F. 2330 to the table for discussion. H.F. 2330 says if gambling has been approved in a particular county, the proposition to approve or disapprove of gambling within the county must be on the ballot for reauthorization for the 2010 General Election. There was some legislation that said that if a county has approved gambling twice it would not need to be put on the ballot again in 2010 but that legislation did not go anywhere. The proposition will still go on the ballot in 2010 because that did not go through.
Reisetter said that she has gotten some questions related to the census information. Apparently the Census Bureau, in the past, has not released information related to how many people that were counted live in a prison when they release the official census figures. Next year when the bureau releases the census figures they are going to include that information so counties will know how many people are living in penitentiaries. The legislature will then have to make the determination as to where to count these people; whether they should be counted at home or in the jurisdiction where the penitentiary is located. The count affects representation. Slockett asked where they are currently counted. Reisetter responded that they are currently counted at the prison. Reisetter said the information will be released earlier next year to allow the states time to choose where those individuals will be counted. She added that the Census Bureau is not going to inform the state where those individuals came from in the first place. So it will be the state’s responsibility to figure that information out if the legislature chooses to count them where they originally came from. She said in the end the legislature is going to have to decide what to do with all of this.
Reisetter discussed the administrative rules that are on the horizon. She said the only thing that she is planning on writing is a security measure dealing with confirming the receipt of an absentee ballot in I-VOTERS so that if there is an attempt to scan in a ballot after it has been received I-VOTERS will identify that the ballot has already been submitted. She added that currently there is an administrative rule that says the canvass date for the gambling referendum has to be on the Monday following the election, and that is being removed.
Reisetter requested that if anyone has any suggestions about administrative rules that have to happen before the General Election they need to let her know.
Gill broached the subject of mail-in elections. He pointed out that it would aid in the cost saving measures that were discussed earlier. Slockett pointed out that there have been requests to do elections via mail but it is not allowed by Iowa law. He said it is something that they can think about.
Slockett said Fokkena, Kline, Pitts, and Shelby County Auditor Marsha Carter met to discuss website developments. Fokkena said that they met with Iowa Interactive CEO Tracy Smith. She said it has been very frustrating to try to chair a website. There were certain representations and agreements made contractually of what Iowa Interactive could do for the auditors; however their vision of having a product to sell at the end of the process has never come to fruition. She stopped asking Iowa Interactive to train auditors. She said they had an incredibly productive meeting with Smith. Fokkena wanted everyone to get together and lay the cards out on the table. She wanted there to be discussion regarding the fact that this may not have panned out to be what was expected by Iowa Interactive two to three CEOs ago. The contract ends June 2011 but inquiries were made to determine whether the contract could be terminated early. Instead Smith informed them that the auditors own the domain name, the content, and the programming. The only thing they don’t own is the functionality to push the information through the portal. Smith surprised Fokkena by saying that she would get the presentations loaded on the website as soon as they are ready. As far as the changes to the website as a whole that were noted by Dunham, Smith was a little slow to commit to making the changes. The hesitation stems from the amount of content and changes that are needed. Fokkena said that if there were clean up things that need to be done and could be done really quickly, Smith said she would be able to get her information technology staff working on those changes. Smith also made a suggestion to find the auditors a free program that would be a program manager and Iowa Interactive would train several people on updating their own content. Fokkena said she liked this suggestion and thinks that a Website Standing Committee would be the best option. She thinks the Website Standing Committee should meet with Iowa Interactive and receive the necessary training and be given the administrative rights to update the website.
Fokkena said she thinks they are committed to staying with Iowa Interactive until the contract comes up for renewal. The assumption following that time is that they will have to start paying someone to host the website. She recommended that the auditors direct people to the auditors’ website as opposed to separately maintained county websites. Doing so would then justify paying to have the website hosted elsewhere in the future. She added that the auditors’ website is full of information, more so than the recorders’ or treasurers’ websites.
Slockett said that he looked at the by-laws and they seem to be pretty clear. The districts are supposed to elect standing committee members and alternates when they elect members. Sulzner clarified and read that each ISACA standing committee shall consist of one member from each of the six districts unless otherwise provided. She said that alternates may be provided at the request of the standing committee. Carter added that the Website Standing Committee has alternates. Sulzner clarified that it is not automatic; rather it has to be from a request from the standing committee.
Slockett clarified that an auditor cannot designate another auditor or a deputy auditor to represent them. He asked if it has to be done by an election at the district level. Kline asked if Slockett was referring to the situation during the last Elections Standing Committee meeting where Carr was unable to make the meeting and Kline filled in. Slockett said that is an example of it. Slockett gave an example from Johnson County in which the elected officials made the decision to not allow alternates from the office of the elected official to attend the meeting otherwise there would hardly ever be a time when the elected officials themselves gathered for a meeting. He said he thinks it is legitimate to think about. Sulzner said what happened last time doesn’t bother her. The only reason she would even question it is because Carr is the representative but Kline was making motions during the meeting and he is not an official member of the committee. She said now that she knows the situation and that Kline was filling in for Carr she has no issue with the fact that he made motions during the last meeting. Clark said if someone is not able to be there and asks someone else from the district to be there, she is okay with that.
Kline said that he would hope that committees would be flexible in order to accommodate the busy schedules of the committee members. Slockett asked if it is okay for an auditor to send a deputy from their county or if the deputy on the committee were to send the auditor in her stead.
Clark, Carter and Pitts left the meeting at 6:20 p.m.
Gill said that it is a pretty prescriptive by-law. He asked Sulzner if the alternates to the Website Standing Committee are chosen via election. Sulzner read from the by-laws. Grandia asked if specific people were appointed or if the member who is unable to attend finds their replacement. Sulzner responded that it is a specific person who is designated as the alternative, but because the workload was so huge they asked that alternates be allowed and to allow alternates to attend every meeting because if someone is unable to be there at the last minute there would still be a quorum. Carr said that she would hope that there would be some flexibility because she can’t guarantee that she is going to be available for every meeting. Slockett said that his concern is getting a quorum. Carr suggested addressing the Resolutions Committee regarding allowing a little bit of leniency so that business can get done. Slockett said that another possibility is to have each district elect an alternate so then the person who can’t come would know who to check with. He said he would really like to avoid talking about the question of deputies. Fokkena said that her concern about electing alternates is that things are changing and most often there is not a lot of staff attending the district meetings. The problem is that the person being elected as the alternate may not be present at the meeting.
Slockett expressed concern that it might reflect poorly on a representative from a particular district if the committee requested that that district elect an alternate. Fokkena said that is not what she is suggesting. She said her suggestion is to have each district appoint rather than elect an alternative. She said electing them would be a problem. Carr said she thought there wasn’t really an issue asking Kline to attend in her place. She asked why it would be an issue to delegate to someone the ability to attend in her place.
Motion by Gill, second by Grandia to follow the bylaws to request that each district provide an alternate to the Elections Standing Committee and ask the Resolutions Committee to look into the issue further.
Slockett said that appointment of additional members to the committee will be something that the Resolutions Committee will need to address. Fokkena noted that additional members were appointed to the Elections Standing Committee the previous year to help with some projects that were underway. Slockett asked if those additional temporary members were appointed by the districts. It was clarified that they were appointed by Former ISACA President and Humboldt County Auditor Peggy Rice. Slockett asked if the bylaws allow the President to allocate additional seats to a standing committee. He said this is something that may also need to be discussed by the resolutions committee. Gill located the statement in the bylaws that said the president can add to an ad hoc committee but not a standing committee.
Slockett asked if there is a reason to reaffirm the actions of the last meeting. He said he put it on the agenda because he did not know if such an action would be needed.
Motion by Gill, second by Grandia to incorporate discussions and affirm the votes of the meeting of February 26, 2010 of the Elections Standing Committee.
Sulzner said she was asked about using user group funds to create equipment use videos. She said she responded with a question as to why this expenditure would be made when there are videos available through ES&S. She said she doesn’t think money should be spent when there is already something out there. She called up the ES&S website on the overhead and showed the committee that the videos for both ES&S and the former Premier equipment are online under voter outreach and education.
Adjourned at 6:45 p.m.
______________________________________________________________________
Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor
On the _______ day of _____________________, 2010
Recorded By Tom Slockett, Auditor