Johnson County Auditor Tom Slockett called the Iowa State Association of County Auditors Elections Standing Committee to order in the Lucas Office Building in Des Moines, Iowa at 10:02 a.m. Members present were: Johnson County Auditor Tom Slockett, Story County Deputy Auditor Danielle Dunham, Marion County Auditor Jake Grandia, and Woodbury County Auditor Pat Gill; Absent: Page County Auditor Judy Clark and Floyd County Auditor Gloria Carr (Represented by Cerro Gordo County Auditor Ken Kline). Also present were: Jasper County Auditor Dennis Parrot and Secretary of State Elections Director Sarah Reisetter. Staff present were: Secretary of State’s Office Representative Marissa Staldman and Johnson County Temporary Deputy Auditor Elizabeth Kies.

Unless otherwise noted, all actions were taken unanimously.

Election of Chairperson

Motion by Gill, second by Kline, that Slockett be elected as Chair of the Elections Standing Committee.

Slockett said he was asked to serve as Chair of the Elections Standing Committee but the bylaws require the Chair to be elected. Gill nominated Slockett for the position of Chair. Slockett accepted the nomination but stated he would be happy to step aside if anyone else would like the position in the future.

Publication of Audio Minutes on Web

Motion by Kline, Second by Grandia, to authorize and approve the Chair to publish the audio minutes to the Johnson County website.

Slockett explained to the Committee the process by which minutes are taken. The software used records the meeting and indexes agenda items within the audio. The minutes can be immediately posted to the web following the meeting, in this case March 1, 2010. The negative side is the possibility that the spontaneity of the meeting may be decreased. There is no necessity to publish the minutes on the web, but the minutes will be recorded either way.

Legislative Committee Report

Parrot told the Committee that things changed in how ISAC viewed the Legislature. He said ISAC felt that the Legislature was going to be less open to a variety of issues that ISAC - auditors, treasurers, recorders, supervisors – were interested in because the legislature was going to focus on budget issues. In the past, for anything that was put in the ISAC booklet, the ISAC representative has lined up sponsors for the legislation. Parrot said that he and Story County Auditor Mary Mosiman take responsibility because they felt like nothing was going to change and that a sponsor would be found for any legislation in the booklet. Parrot added that for legislation not included in the booklet, he and Mosiman have always sought out legislators to back those particular pieces of legislation. He said that those pieces have always been the issues that all the affiliates did not agree upon so they would have to be pushed through separately. Parrot said he thought it was odd that bill numbers had not been assigned after the Legislature had been in session for a month, so he called the representative and asked what the bill numbers were. He was told that there was not anyone willing to sponsor the legislation.

Parrot said that he and Mosiman went back to Capitol Hill and talked to legislators about proposals that were listed in the booklet. They were told that they were too late. They were also told that they should take a lesson from the recorders because they seek out sponsors on their own rather than relying on ISAC to do it for them. He was told that the recorders have success doing it on their own. One legislator told him that the Legislature does not pay much attention to ISAC and that it would be best to pursue the legislation on their own. Parrot and Mosiman proceeded to seek out sponsors for the particular pieces of legislation that they believed they still had an opportunity on. They chose not to deal with the financial issues. Rather they attempted to work on reimbursement policies for medical examiner fees and vote centers.

Parrot said that the medical examiners have a county association as well as the State Medical Examiner’s Office. The medical examiners were opposed to the reimbursement paperwork. The medical examiners spoke to House District 77 State Representative and State Government Committee Chair Mary Mascher who decided not to run the bill. She had agreed to run the bill but had wanted to hear from the medical examiners first. Parrot said that vote centers was much the same, except that at one point he had been told that it may be included in the Reorganization Bill that the state government was going to do for their own finances. He said he thinks that it was determined that the issue wasn’t germane enough to be included since there were no other local issues in the Bill. Parrot and Mosiman spoke with Speaker of the House and House District 28 State Representative Pat Murphy and Senate District 50 State Senator Michael Gronstal and Parrot believes that the issues will need to be addressed next year.

Parrot said that all of the things the auditors wanted to push are going to go nowhere this year. He said that some of that is probably the fault of Mosiman and him because they thought the process had not changed, and he thinks that some of it is ISAC’s fault.

Parrot talked about H.F. 2470 which is a Speaker Bill. He explained that the bill came about following a special election in Southeastern Iowa. He said Speaker Murphy attended the special election as a poll watcher and was upset at how he was treated by precinct officials. Murphy told of how precinct officials had threatened to call the police on him if he did not leave the polling place. As a result Speaker Murphy started H.F. 2470. The Democratic Party operatives got involved because they wanted some things that would benefit them in running elections. Parrot said that at one point there were severe penalties put on precinct officials for making the mistake of not making sure an individual was able to cast a provisional ballot if they didn’t qualify to vote otherwise. The operatives wanted the auditors to have a list of all people who had cast provisional ballots on election night. They also wanted the Secretary of State’s Office to change the registration form as well as the absentee ballot form, along with a number of other things. Parrot said that with the help of Secretary of Statue Michael Mauro, the auditor’s Legislative Committee has been able to water down the bill. Parrot said another issue that was in the Bill was that the operatives wanted a blank check to be deemed acceptable as identification and residency for same-day voters. The Legislative Committee didn’t think that was a good thing to do.

Parrot informed the Elections Standing Committee of the status of the bill currently. He added that there are a couple of amendments that exist that could be attached to the bill as well. He said that the amendments are ones that are helpful to the auditors. The bill says now that a same-day voter can use a bank statement, or another document that has been electronically sent or received through the Postal Service, as proof of residence. Additionally a rental payment receipt that states the voter’s name, address and a date can be used as a proof of living within a precinct. He said that something else that is in the bill is that a voter can request an absentee ballot for any election within the same calendar year. He gave an example of someone coming to the Auditor’s Office and requesting an absentee ballot on January 3, 2010. Following that request, the Auditor’s Office must have the information in I-VOTERS within 100 days so that the political parties can pick up the information and start calling to make sure that the absentee ballot will be returned. Parrot pointed out that they won’t even have absentee ballots out 100 days in advance of the election but at least the information will be in the system so the political parties will be able to get their lists ready and be able to make the calls.

Parrot said that another thing included is that the Department of Transportation (DOT) will not be required to ask individuals who register whether or not they would like an absentee ballot. He said this change would take place after the forms are changed, effective in 2012. He said that would be too much to ask of the DOT as they are already busy getting an individual their driver’s license or tags and registering a voter. Parrot said that there was a problem with a particular precinct in which precinct workers were asking for identification from every voter that came in. He said Speaker Murphy felt that was a little obsessive, so language was originally included to say that identification could not be asked for under any circumstances. However, there is an amendment introduced by House District 93 State Representative Mary Gaskill which has leadership support which will allow the precinct official to ask for identification if the official has reasonable doubt as to the prospective voter’s claim of identity. Parrot said that the bill will be amended to allow the precinct official some discretion rather than saying that identification cannot be requested at all. Kline asked if a voter who moves across a precinct line will still be affected by this. Parrot responded that identification would still be required in that instance.

Parrot said that, apparently, Speaker Murphy tried, as a poll watcher, to intervene on behalf of an unregistered young man, without the proper identification but who was with his parents, so that he could at least vote a provisional ballot. Murphy tried to inform the precinct official that they were not following the law and that the young man should at least get to vote a provisional ballot. He was met with resistance from the precinct official. The Bill would include language allowing the ability for a poll watcher to advocate on behalf of a voter to the precinct official, if they feel like the precinct official is not allowing the voter due process. Kline confirmed that there would be language in the bill allowing poll watchers to advocate on behalf of voters. He said that is new territory. Parrot agreed. Kline said that right now poll watchers are not allowed to talk to voters and that concerns are to be brought to the attention of the precinct officials. Parrot clarified that the poll watchers would advocate on behalf of the voters by speaking to the precinct officials when they observe a possible process issue. It would not necessarily be like a challenge.

Parrot said that he mentioned keeping track of the provisional ballots for the political parties. He said that originally the Democratic Party operatives wanted the list on election night, but the Legislative Committee has been able to get them to agree to allow auditors to prepare a list of names and addresses of people who cast provisional ballots by 9:00 a.m. the Thursday following the election. The Absentee Ballot Board would then convene at noon on Friday to finish up their part of the process. Parrot said that he and Mosiman were able to get them to back off enough to give the auditors a little bit of extra time.

Parrot said that there are a lot of things in H.F. 2470 that the Legislative Committee does not like, but a lot of the things included are things on which they do not have a choice. He said the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader have already signed off on the bill as it reads. He added that there will be some attempts at amendments. The best they could get was an extra day to put the lists together. Parrot said that hopefully, as time goes on, there will be fewer and fewer provisional ballots because of the existence of same-day registration and same-day voting. He added that provisional ballots will never go away completely, but hopefully, for most auditors, they will be limited.

Parrot said that the bill will bring Absentee Ballot Boards in by 12:00 p.m. the Friday following the election and they will do their work before the canvass is performed the following week. He said that one of the good things in the bill is that it removes the requirement to give a reason for requesting an absentee ballot.

Parrot said that one of the main provisions is that once the Absentee Ballot Board begins counting ballots they cannot quit, unless there is a malfunction of the equipment. The provision regarding starting on Monday was also removed. Parrot said the provision dealt with being able to start counting on Monday if the race was so close in the previous election. Slockett said that you would be required to start on Monday. Reisetter confirmed that if you did not have them counted by 10:00 p.m. during the previous General Election, you would be required to start counting on Monday. She said anybody could begin counting on Monday but there are some situations where auditors would be required to start counting on Monday. Parrot said the bill would take that provision out of the Iowa Code. It would allow anyone to start counting on Monday and have all day Tuesday. The only way counting could stop on Wednesday is if there is an equipment malfunction.

Kline asked how the provision stating that counting couldn’t stop would affect allowing people to go home if they start on Monday. Parrot responded that the Bill will actually say that once counting begins on Tuesday, the day of the election, the counting of absentee ballots cannot stop unless there is a malfunction.

Parrot said there is a section in the bill that results must be reported by precinct to the Secretary of State’s Office, who will combine everything into one report. The Secretary of State’s Office will need to come up with one report for the political parties to have after the election. Parrot said that there is no time scheduled for that report.

Parrot said that House District 51 State Representative Rod Roberts has an amendment that would take out the sections regarding taking an absentee ballot for a particular election in the same calendar year. Parrot pointed out that Roberts is in the minority and is unsure of the success Roberts will have.

Parrot reiterated that H.F. 2470 began because of Speaker Murphy’s unhappiness regarding the way the election went in a particular house district. Kline asked about the temperament of the Speaker, wondering if he was not completely innocent in the incident. Parrot said he had asked Speaker Murphy whether he had contacted the Auditor’s Office with the law violations he noticed. One example was a gentleman from Texas coming to the polling place and requesting to vote though he was not a citizen of Iowa. Parrot said he could have cast a provisional ballot, but the precinct official said the man couldn’t vote in Iowa since he was from Texas. Parrot said that Murphy said he had called the Auditor’s Office who planned to look into the incident. Parrot said he then called the Auditors of all three counties who did not know anything about the problems at the polling place. Parrot said that the second time he asked Murphy about calling the Auditor’s Office, Murphy responded that he did not call the Office because it was late and they didn’t have time to call. Parrot said he doesn’t want to characterize Murphy in any way but Parrot believes that he is not innocent himself and all the blame then goes on the precinct official. He said that Murphy may have created part of the situation but there is no additional information as to what happened to cause the incident.

Grandia asked if the bill includes anything that would give the precinct officals more voice or doing anything about notification to the precinct officials. Grandia added that if it was known in advance that Murphy was going to be present in that precinct, and then the Auditor may have given that precinct a little extra attention. Grandia wondered if the proper steps had been taken for Murphy to be a poll watcher. Parrot said that Murphy had said he had signed up to be a poll watcher, however Parrot did not follow through to confirm that was true. Grandia said it would be nice to know who was going to be at the polling place so that preparations could be made. Slockett said that under current law, poll watchers are just required to have credentials from the candidate or the political party to be able to show if asked. Slockett said it would be helpful if they would notify the Auditor’s Office of their presence. Parrot said that there is an amendment that would force political parties to train poll watchers on how to perform the task properly. Parrot said that is a Gaskill amendment. Parrot responded that he doesn’t think it would really do anything.

Parrot said that the Legislative Committee went in not supporting anything in the Bill except for one item, doing away with reasons for requesting an absentee ballot. All of the other provisions came from the Speaker of the House. Gill asked for further explanation on the 100 days provision. Parrot responded that it is currently 70 days that you have to start processing the absentee ballot requests. Now a person would have to have the information in I-VOTERS so political parties can get a list. Parrot said you would have to create the election. Gill said that that is the problem, creating the election. Reisetter added that not only will they need to be on the system but all information must be put in the system within 48 hours. Gill asked a question regarding setting up the elections. Reisetter responded that some counties already have the Primary and the General set up for the year. However she believes that most people set up the General Election once the Primary is over. Gill confirmed that those who have the General set up currently are capable of entering the information they need to enter within 100 days.

Slockett asked Reisetter if she had any observations to share. Reisetter said that Parrot did a good job of summarizing what is currently in H.F. 2470. She said that the previous version is House Study Bill (H.S.B.) 683 which is still available. H.F. 2470 is what remains after Parrot and Mauro’s work. Reisetter said that the House of Representatives has until next week to get the bill out of the House. She said it has been on the debate calendar all week but has not come up yet. She said she will keep the auditors informed if anything happens with the bill.

Gill asked Reisetter about a reference to misconceptions. Reisetter responded that there have been some questions about whether H.F. 2470 is a bill that was written by the Secretary of State’s Office. She said Secretary Mauro wanted it to be made clear that this is not from the Secretary of State’s Office. Parrot said that after speaking to the House of Representatives Subcommittee, Mauro said that the bill is not good for elections and that it does not help the election process at all. Parrot said that Mauro said that he would not put his name on it or support it. There were only a couple of good items in the bill which happen to be deleting the reasons for requesting an absentee ballot, but Mauro said he would not put his name on it. Parrot said that a Republican representative asked Mauro to testify to the committee regarding the bill and share what he said in the subcommittee. Parrot said that Mauro said he was willing to speak against the bill as a whole but was not willing to go through item by item. Parrot said that because of other circumstances Mauro was not called into the committee that day or may not have been contacted again. Parrot said it is clearly not the Secretary of State’s bill. He said that Murphy likes it and will make sure it gets to the House. Parrot said that Gronstal was in the meetings and was willing to agree to some of the modifications that the ISACA Legislative Committee requested. Slockett said that this is not a model of good process and good practice, that a confrontation occurred which resulted in legislation that has not been vetted through the Auditor’s Association or committee system. He said there are some unintended consequences in several areas of the bill. He gave the example of the continuation of the precinct on Tuesday and whether that meant that there could be substitute precinct workers. He said that the notion that the workers can just stay on command is not realistic. Slockett said he doesn’t understand why the Special Precinct can’t be held on Thursday if they can get everything done that needs to be done on Thursday. Slockett repeated that this is bad process and he hopes that it won’t be run through without getting more input from the auditors.

Parrot said that is a good idea and probably accomplishable. Parrot said that the suggestion of allowing a meeting on Thursday or Friday by noon is not unreasonable and can be brought up when the bill gets to the Senate. He said it could be accomplished in an amendment. Parrot said his opinion is that if the Absentee Ballot Board workers want to leave, there is nothing he can do about it. The Code does not list any penalties for leaving. Parrot said that Mauro said maybe these should be called as meetings and you can always recess a meeting. He said he thinks Mauro was just trying to find a way to manipulate the process.

Parrot said the only other minor thing that is out there is S.F. 218. He said that he does not know a lot about this as far as practicality. It is in regards to double election boards. S.F. 218 takes away the ability to appoint double election boards. He asked the members present if any have used something like that. Slockett asked if anyone has conducted paper ballot elections because he never has and that is the only time double election boards can be used. Reisetter confirmed that is the only time they can be used. Parrot said it is a small scope thing. Grandia responded that he knows a lot of people use paper ballots in southern counties. Slockett said that for counties that don’t have their own software capabilities, it would be too expensive not to use paper ballots. Reisetter said that she is only aware of one county that uses the Double Election Board. Slockett said that they need to make sure that the one county takes a look at S.F. 218.

Parrot said he would like to speak to the Elections Standing Committee briefly about what was sent out by Boone County Auditor Phil Myer. Parrot said that he thinks that ISAC is making a terrible mistake. He said he thinks the new policy is staff driven and not affiliate driven. He thinks that ISAC perceives a problem in that they can no longer handle the load and feels that the process that is currently in place is not working. Parrot said, in his opinion, there is some arrogance in the issue and he does not like it very much. Parrot said, that as auditors, they need to work to fix something if there are problems. He said he is talking about the Steering Committee process as well as the June Legislative District Meetings. He said that in that letter, the things that bothered him were things said by staff. He read from the letter, saying that there continue to be problems with the quality of the objectives they are to pursue. He said that they list a number of small items. He said these are issues from the staff’s opinion. Parrot said that he doesn’t know how big of an issue it is to the Treasurer’s Office but it might be a big issue to them even though it seems like a small issue to ISAC staff. He said that the arrogance seems to say that ISAC is telling the counties that they don’t know what is good for them and that their priorities aren’t high enough or big enough. Parrot said he doesn’t think this is the way to go. He read from the letter that the policy staff cannot be at every Steering Committee Meeting to determine whether each proposal is well thought out in terms of a solution. Parrot said that maybe, in ISAC’s way of thinking, the language may not be perfect when they get it ready to put in the booklet, but the steering committees are the ones of all people who need to know, and should know, and need to be able to communicate what their needs are, when it comes to problems needing legislative solutions. Parrot continued reading that ISAC said the committee members may or may not have the information necessary to ask the right questions as often and the members acquiesce to the expert. Parrot wondered who the expert is. He said that they are the experts in his opinion. They may get staff help, but he thinks that the ISAC staff is taking it a step too far. He said that if they have priorities that they think are important and the committees express it the way they want to get the legislation across, the ISAC staff is welcome to do some tweaking or tinkering. Parrot said that he thinks they are doing too much directing.

Parrot said that in June, it is his understanding that the meetings will be replaced by webinars, and on various days all the auditors will be on the webinar to consider their legislative proposals, and the other offices will be on the webinar on other days. Parrot said he does not know how well attended the district meetings are in other districts, but he said those are important times for the first district because they begin to develop their legislative package. He said to do away with the steering committees and then have each affiliate only appoint two people that need to represent the whole affiliate at the table, he said he thinks the end result will be that all districts will develop their own pieces of legislation and will not work together and be as cohesive. Parrot said that auditors are not going to know about transportation anymore or the other issues because those committees will no longer meet. He said that they will have to rely on two people from the affiliate to barter, negotiate and agree to legislation. He thinks there will be a breakdown with districts going to the hill to fight for their own legislation and there will be conflicts and the perception that ISAC doesn’t matter, as is thought by some of the legislators currently, will proliferate. Parrot said he thinks this is too staff-driven and he doesn’t think it is heading in the right direction. Kline said he has gotten the feeling that ISAC feels like they are in control rather than providing a service and he finds that troubling.

H.F. 682

Slockett said that H.F. 682 came to his attention when he received a mass email that appeared to have been sent out to all county auditors but he has since found that it did not go out to all. He also thought it had gone to the Secretary of State’s Office as well but it did not. Slockett said the Polk County Auditor received a copy, as did Gronstal. He said it is a bill requiring automatic audits after General Elections. Reisetter said that this is the bill that the Post-Election Audit Committee came up with that was being considered last year. She said that last year it got through the house unanimously and ran to the Senate where it was killed . She explained that this is an effort to revive the bill in the Senate and get it moving there. Reisetter said that it has not been scheduled to go through subcommittee. She said it has to go though subcommittee first, then through the full committee and then to the floor of the Senate. Kline asked if the reasons that it had been killed in the Senate last year are now gone. Reisetter responded that there have been some amendments that were made to it last year. Kline said he thought it was dead in the legislature last year so he was surprised that it was back again this year. Reisetter said it is still around because it is still the 83rd General Assembly. If it doesn’t go anywhere this year then it will be completely dead and the whole process will need to be started over next year.

Parrot said the only thing he heard from last year is that Gronstal, through Chief of Staff to Representative Gronstal Ron Parker, said that H.F. 682 would not go anywhere. Parrot said that if Gronstal has changed his mind this year, he is not aware of it. Apparently this is a refreshed effort to get it done. Gill asked who sent the letter Slockett received. Reisetter responded that it came from a group of computer experts and the letter was mailed to Gronstal last August. Gill asked if it came from the advocacy group that was pushing it originally. Slockett said that it came from various computer experts from all over the country. Gill asked Parrot if he was aware of anything that was happening with the bill. Parrot said he is not aware of anything but he will call Parker and ask if there is anything afoot that needs to be followed up on. Reisetter said that they followed up on it February 25, 2010 and Parker said that it was the first time he had heard about it. Slockett said that is good, because the letter seemed to indicate that there had been a change in position from a member of the opposition to the bill. It really looked like a live round in the letter received. Slockett said he did want to note that the issue had been discussed at the summer school and it was thought that there was no reason to take a position on it because the bill was not going anywhere. He said it was quite a shock to see this apparently renewed effort.

Slockett said that he received a very strong opinion from the Executive Director of the Election Center against the bill. Also the State Director of Elections from Michigan has developed a strong position and presented them to Congressional incentive leaders. Slockett said that it is good to get the other side of the story. There are experts in favor of the bill but there are also a lot of experts opposed. The reasons have been put out and Slockett said today is the first he has heard that it isn’t really a realistic possibility. Parrot said he would call Polk County Auditor Jamie Fitzgerald. Slockett said that Fitzgerald did not get the letter but he had talked to Jamie who was appreciative of the research and information available. He said Fitzgerald did not address whether or not he had changed his mind. Slockett said it could have just been innuendo in the letter to get others to try to change their minds. He said it doesn’t sound like there is any necessity at this time for the auditors to take a position either for or against the bill.

Parrot once again said that he and Mosiman take some responsibility for not getting better action on the legislation. He said they took it for granted that ISAC would find sponsors for the legislation in the booklet because they always have.

Commitment to Sponsor 2010 Voter Education Project on Behalf of ISACA

Motion by Kline, second by Dunham, to recommend to ISACA to sponsor the 2010 Voter Education Project.

Kline said that he approached the Elections Committee prior to the General Election of 2008 regarding a Voter Education Project consisting of a series of Microsoft PowerPoint presentations. PowerPoint is a very versatile program and can be adapted for use on various media. He said that voices of actual employees were used in the project. He said the project was done in partnership with the Secretary of State. The benefit of the partnership is that the content has been reviewed and received the approval of the Secretary of State. He added that ISACA sponsored the project in 2008 and he would recommend that they do so again.

Grandia asked what the commitment would be if they chose to sponsor the project. Kline said it would be putting their name on it. Grandia asked if there would be a financial commitment. Kline responded that the financial commitment would be paying mileage and other expenses in finishing the project. He said that Cerro Gordo County worked on it previously and are committed to do so again. He said Cerro Gordo County’s investment would be a lot less because the road was paved with the technology the first time. Gill confirmed that as far as other commitment, the auditors would make recommendations. Slockett agreed.

Decision to Partner with Secretary of State Michael Mauro for 2010 Voter Education Project

Motion by Kline, second by Grandia, to partner with Secretary of State Michael Mauro for the 2010 Voter Education Project.

Kline said that he would encourage a partnership with the Secretary of State. Slockett asked Reisetter whether the Secretary of State’s Office has an opinion. Reisetter responded that the Secretary of State’s Office is willing to work with ISACA on the project.

Review and Revision of Outdated Information on the County Auditors’ website

Slockett said that Dunham has done some extensive work in this area. Kline said that it was suggested to him that the website be reviewed. He said that he passed that along to the Committee but he has not personally taken time to look at it. He said that he believes it is outdated and should be updated. He said that he does not personally have the time to tackle the needed changes.

Dunham said that she and Story County Deputy Auditor Lucy Martin had been nominated to collaborate on this project. She said that together they went through every single link on the website. Martin presented the notes they made to the Website Committee and Dunham said she is presenting it to the Elections Committee. Dunham said that the notes that she shared with the committee are their bullet points on what they think needs to be changed. She said that it is her understanding that Iowa Interactive was going to take the updates and comments and do what could be done for the physical appearance of the website. She added that the appearance of the website was a large portion of the issues that they had noted. She said they feel like they are in limbo from there because they do not know who is actually updating the information or who has the ability to link to other websites. The main goal is to not recreate the wheel if great existing information is already available. They just want to make sure the links stay current with the new law changes and add the new PowerPoint information for elections.

Slockett said that the amount of work that they put in is appreciated. Dunham said that Martin works with the website in Story County but she felt that tackling this project would be too much for one person. Dunham said she doesn’t know where the partnership with Iowa Interactive currently is. Kline asked if she is suggesting the formation of a subcommittee to look into the issue of who to contact to update the website.

Slockett said that he received an email regarding Dunham’s comments from Butler County Auditor and ISACA 2nd Vice-President Holly Fokkena. Slockett said Fokkena wanted the Committee to know that currently ISACA is in a state of flux with the website. Iowa Interactive has not been paying attention to the site as of late, however Fokkena stated that she doesn’t blame them because they do not pay for the site. She added that she and Shelby County Auditor Marsha Carter are waiting to hear from ISAC as to whether they would consider hosting the auditor’s website for a fee. Slockett added that Fokkena does not think that at this point she can make anything happen but the comments regarding the website are appreciated.

Slockett said that if a committee is formed, the location, for convenience, might be a consideration. He added that it is possible to collaborate through email and through phone lines. Slockett asked what Dunham’s preference would be. Dunham responded that they need to find an actual person to implement the changes. She said they felt they were in limbo because they didn’t know who the point person was to update the website. Slockett responded that Fokkena’s suggestion of putting Dunham’s notes on the website and asking other auditors to provide their input is an excellent idea. Grandia said that it sounds like it might be a problem even getting it put on the website. Dunham agreed.

Slockett said it is a large file. Grandia clarified that currently, they don’t know who to ask to put it on the web. He asked if Iowa Interactive isn’t doing it now, they don’t know who they could get to put it on the web. Dunham said that is exactly the issue. Slockett said that if ISACA would do it, it sounds like it would be for a fee.

Kline explained the history behind the development of the auditor’s website. Originally the treasurers approached the auditors. At the time Iowa Interactive leadership felt that the website would be marketable. The auditors expressed their doubts at the time about the marketability. He said that the leadership was convinced that it was marketable. ISACA said OK and worked with Iowa Interactive to create the website and the leadership changed and they may have realized that it wasn’t as marketable as was originally thought. Slockett asked about I-VOTERS use of Iowa Interactive. Reisetter asked if he is talking about results or the driver’s license verification. Slockett said he was thinking of the driver’s license verification. Reisetter responded that with the driver’s license verification there have been some issues in terms of when it is working, but there are a lot of offices involved in correcting the issue. She said she doesn’t know who has the contract with Iowa Interactive but she is guessing that it is the Department of Transportation (DOT) and not the Secretary of State’s Office. There have been some functionality issues but there haven’t been issues with Iowa Interactive being willing to support it. Reisetter asked the Committee if they are getting the emails from Iowa Interactive when the site goes down. The consensus from the Committee was that emails were not being received. Reisetter said that the Secretary of State’s Office are supposed to be getting emails but they are not getting them either. There are people currently working on getting the issue resolved.

Slockett asked about daily real estate updates and whether those should continue to be done. Kline said yes.

Kline returned to the topic of a subcommittee for updating the website. He asked Dunham if she has any input since she has already worked on the project. He presented two options, one being a subcommittee to review and present their suggestions, the second being leaving it to the Elections Standing Committee. Slockett said he doesn’t think that they have the time to do it in the full committee. He said that Dunham has put extensive work into it and he doesn’t think the Committee is ready to go through all of that. He suggested meeting just for the purpose of going over each link on the website but the other auditors should take a look at it as well. He thinks a great first step would be to get what has been done by Dunham up on a website that everyone has access to. He added that it sounds like Iowa Interactive is not interested in putting it up so the next place to go would be to ISAC and look into the cost. Slockett said it seems like Dunham is interested in just doing the changes they have established already. Dunham clarified that what she is interested in is figuring out who the point person is to put the updates on the web.

Kline said that until that is established he doesn’t think forming a subcommittee is necessary. If everyone has the information that they need they can send their suggestions to someone. Slockett said that he is pretty happy with having a subcommittee do it. He said the question is who should be on the subcommittee. He said there are three names on the table and two of them aren’t present, putting them at a real disadvantage. He discussed putting Fokkena on the subcommittee as well.

Grandia clarified that even if a hard list of changes was developed right now, it sounds like there is no one to go to get those changes made and they have no idea of when there will be someone who can make those changes. He said there might be a resolution next week but it might be months. If they are switching who hosts the site then they would need to wait before moving forward. Slockett continued that communication has been initiated with ISAC regarding hosting the auditors’ webpage for a fee. Grandia asked if business negotiations are taking place. Slockett said that is what it sounds like. Grandia then asked if ISAC takes over would there not then be meetings with ISAC regarding the changes and establishing the website. He wonders whether they should go through the process now if it may be outdated in six months. Shouldn’t they wait to find out who is going to host the site and get contacts and then move forward, or is that not starting the process fast enough. Slockett said they are dealing with a lot of unknowns. Kline explained the legislative history behind needing a website which stemmed from the need for the treasurers throughout the state to have a website. Each has a website that stands on its own and they send data to the centralized site.

Slockett said it seems to him the first thing they have to do is to wait to find out where the website will be. Kline agreed. Grandia said that he doesn’t particularly like having outdated information on something that says “Iowa Auditors” but he doesn’t want to go through unnecessary process. Slockett said it sounds like there is communication with ISAC about posting it there and he added it would be the most logical place to have it. Slockett asked if it should be tabled.

Grandia asked how often this Committee meets and what the follow up would be. Gill asked if it is necessary to have it on this website. Dunham explained that she thinks it was used for counties that didn’t have a website as a tool to find elections results on the web. Kline said that there is a variety of information that was put on a few years ago including the Voter Education Project slides. Kline questioned whether that is where it should be placed long term but that is not the question at this point.

Slockett asked Reisetter which counties don’t have a website. Reisetter explained that she thinks it is a few. She said in 2008 the Secretary of State’s Office pushed the reported results at the county level back out to the Iowa Auditor’s website for people who don’t have the ability to put the results on their website. She said on election night the Secretary of State’s website only shows state totals at this point and not individual county results. Slockett said it does provide a valuable function for those counties.

Grandia exited at 11:31 a.m.

Slockett stated where the Committee stands. He said they think the information needs to be somewhere but they don’t know where. He said the question is if they want to wait until they find out where and if that will change the need for the subcommittee. He answered the question saying no, so the subcommittee should be appointed. He added that they know they want Dunham to be on the subcommittee. He asked for volunteers to be on the subcommittee.

Secretary of State Mauro entered the meeting at 11:34 a.m.

Discussion with Secretary of State Michael Mauro

Slockett informed Mauro of the current discussion. He explained that Iowa Interactive has not been updating the current website and may not continue to host it in the future. He said the committee is pursuing posting the information on ISAC’s website.

Gill asked Mauro about how election results at the county level worked on the Secretary of State’s website. Mauro checked with Reisetter that the information is being downloaded. Mauro explained that there are different methods of entering the information which may make the process take longer. He said the capability is there, it is just a matter of information being loaded uniformly.

Kline asked why some counties upload their information manually. Reisetter explained that sometimes a card fails so they can’t upload their information which will force them to do the manual entry. She added that some counties don’t have tabulation software so they also have to do it manually.

Mauro asked if everyone had the software for the last election. Reisetter said that some of them did not. Some may get it only for the general election, but she still thinks there were some counties that did not have it at all.

Mauro said that Iowa Interactive was going to establish websites for those counties that did not have their own websites. Reisetter explained that if a county had their own results website then the Secretary of State’s website linked directly to the county website. She added that if a county didn’t have their own website then Iowa Interactive created a website to which the Secretary of State’s Office pushed the information to. Mauro said the individual county webpages could be activated for the races right from the state page. He added that they thought it is pretty good for the counties that have their own websites.

Kline asked if the results pages are through a contract with the Secretary of State. Mauro said yes. Reisetter explained that the results are pushed to the Iowa Auditors’ webpage. She said the State page linked to the particular county page through the Iowa Auditors’ webpage. The election night results interfaced with the auditors’ webpage. Mauro asked if that is something that will be done again. Reisetter said it has not be set up yet. She has assumed that they would.

Mauro asked if the Committee had been briefed on the Election Bill. He said it is not a bill from the Secretary of State rather it is from leadership. He said it has been toned down quite a bit from the original bill that had come out. It is a result of how legislators felt the election went in certain jurisdictions and an attempt to make some corrections regarding provisional balloting. Mauro said it is also trying to change the voter registration or absentee forms. He said he has seen some things that will make it better but there are also some things in the bill that will require programming changes on the auditors’ end. He said some of this bill is about bookkeeping and getting reports to makr the absentee requests easier. Slockett added there are always plusses and minuses to things like that. Some times you send a lot of ballots to people who are not there. Mauro said this is going to affect auditors and the Secretary of State. He added that it is not going to go into affect until later but they originally wanted this all in place before the primary election.

Grandia returned at 11:45 a.m.

Recessed at 11:47 a.m., reconvened at 12:40 p.m.

Slockett said they still need to appoint a committee. He asked Dunham if she would do it. Dunham made the recommendation that they wait to form the committee until the get a decision as to who is going to run the website. She said it would then give them the correct point person to work with. Kline said that somebody should follow up what the plans for the website are. Slockett said he will stay in touch with Fokkena.

Content and Format of Voter Education Project

Voting System in Iowa

Slide 1: No changes recommended,

Slide 2: Changed “counties in Iowa” to “Iowa counties” (but not discussed),

Slide 3: No changes recommended,

Slide 4: No changes recommended,

Slide 5: No changes recommended,

Slide 6: Added a bullet point for political party,

Slide 7: No changes recommended,

Slide 8: No changes recommended,

Slide 9: Removed “voters’”,

Slide 10: Removed “voters’”,

Added slides for Q & A regarding when the absentee ballots are counted.

Slide 11: No changes recommended.

Slide 12: No changes recommended.

Slide 13: No changes recommended.

Slide 14: Add “in person” before “at the County Auditor’s office.”

Slide 15: Removed “and systems”. Changed “are” to “is” (changed but not discussed).

Slide 16: Changed the word “read” to “count”.

Slide 17: Changed the word “properly” in the second paragraph to “accurately”.

Slide 18: Reversed the order of the websites as listed. May need to edit or remove the www.iowaauditors.org website in the future if the host of the site changes. This change will need to be carried through each of the slide presentations.

Primary Election Ballot

Slide 1: No changes recommended.

Slide 2: No changes recommended.

Slide 3: No changes recommended.

Slide 4: No changes recommended.

Slide 5: Changed “the respective” to “each” in the last paragraph.

Slide 6: No changes recommended.

Slide 7: No changes recommended.

Slide 8: No changes recommended.

Slide 9: Changed “(for half of Iowa voters)” to “(for odd-numbered senate seats)”. Capitalized the “R” in State Representative in the last bullet.

Slide 10: No changes recommended.

Slide 11: Changed “will” to “may”.

Slide 12: No changes recommended.

Slide 13: Deleted the second paragraph.

Slide 14: No changes recommended.

Slide 15: Removed “specific” (changed but not discussed).

Slide 16: Reversed the order of the websites as listed.

General Election Ballot

Slide 1: No changes recommended.

Slide 2: No changes recommended.

Slide 3: No changes recommended.

Slide 4: No changes recommended.

Slide 5: No changes recommended.

Slide 6: No changes recommended.

Slide 7: No changes recommended.

Slide 8: No changes recommended.

Slide 9: No changes recommended.

Slide 10: No changes recommended.

Slide 11: No changes recommended.

Slide 12: No changes recommended.

Slide 13: No changes recommended.

Slide 14: No changes recommended.

Slide 15: Reverse the order of the websites as listed.

Add slides addressing Constitutional Conventions Q & A. Reference Iowa Constitutional Amendment from 1964.

Marking the Ballot

Slide 1: No changes recommended.

Slide 2: No changes recommended.

Slide 3: No changes recommended.

Slide 4: No changes recommended.

Slide 5: Italicized “voter’s responsibility” (changed but not discussed).

Slide 6: No changes recommended.

Slide 7: No changes recommended.

Slide 8: Changed the second paragraph to read “For the Primary Election, Iowa law requires the write-in oval to be marked in order for it to be counted.”

Slide 9: No changes recommended.

Added 3 slides with Q & A for the question “Can I write-in the name of a candidate from another party on my ballot?”.

Slide 10: No changes recommended.

Slide 11: Removed the words “and questions” from the second paragraph (change discussed). Italicized “voter’s responsibility” (changed but not discussed).

Slide 12: Added “and no vote for the office of County Supervisor” to the end of the sentence in the yellow text box.

Slide 13: No changes recommended.

Slide 14: Changed “Affidavit Envelope” to read “Return Carrier Envelope” (changed but not discussed).

Slide 15: Reversed the order of the websites as listed.

Straight Party Voting

Slide 1: No changes recommended.

Added slides with Q & A for “What is straight party voting?”.

Slide 2: No changes recommended.

Slide 3: No changes recommended.

Slide 4: No changes recommended.

Slide 5: No changes recommended.

Slide 6: No changes recommended.

Slide 7: Added the word “only” in the second paragraph following “for that office.”

Slide 8: No changes recommended.

Slide 9: No changes recommended.

Slide 10: Reversed the order of the websites as listed.

Election Day Voter Registration

Slide 1: No changes recommended.

Slide 2: Added “must” to the end of the paragraph. Made “Residency in the precinct” a separate bullet. Made the words “identity” in the first bullet and “residency” in the second bullet bold.

Slide 3: No changes recommended.

Slide 4: Made the words “identity” and “residency” bold. (changed but not discussed).

Slide 5: No changes recommended.

Slide 6: Made the words “identity” and “residency” bold.

Added 3 slides with Q & A and instructions for students of community colleges and public universities.

Slide 7: No changes recommended.

Slide 8: Made the word “identity” bold.

Slide 9: No changes recommended.

Slide 10: Changed to read “If a person does not have acceptable documentation, Iowa law allows another voter to attest to the voter’s identity and residency.” Added a paragraph that reads “The person who is attesting must be a registered voter within the same precinct as the voter.”.

Slide 11: Removed the first paragraph.

Slide 12: No changes recommended.

Slide 13: No changes recommended.

Slide 14: No changes recommended.

Slide 15: Added the time of 5:00 p.m. to the last bullet.

Slide 16: Add apostrophe and ‘s’ following “Iowa Secretary of State” to make it possessive.

Slide 17: Contact Secretary of State Michael Mauro for quote.

Slide 18: Reversed the order of the websites as listed.

Absentee Voting

Slide 1: No changes recommended.

Slide 2: No changes recommended.

Slide 3: Deleted last paragraph.

Added slide that reads “For the 2010 Primary Election, a voter may vote an absentee ballot in person at the County Auditor’s Office from Thursday, April 29th through Monday, June 7th. (New Paragraph) The deadline to submit a written request for an absentee ballot to be mailed to the voter is 5:00 p.m., Friday, June 4th.

Slide 4: No changes recommended.

Slide 5: No changes recommended.

Slide 6: No changes recommended.

Slide 7: No changes recommended.

Slide 8: Removed website address (changed but not discussed).

Slide 9: No changes recommended.

Slide 10: No changes recommended.

Slide 11: Changed the question to read “Can absentee ballot requests be solicited by a political party or candidate?”.

Slide 12: No changes recommended.

Slide 13: No changes recommended.

Slide 14: Removed the language “Except for curbside voting by a voter who cannot enter the building,”. Changed “removal of ballots” to “removing a ballot”. (changes made but not discussed).

Slide 15: No changes recommended.

Slide 16: No changes recommended.

Slide 17: No changes recommended.

Slide 18: Added “In Iowa,” to the beginning of the first statement. Changed second statement to read “To receive an absentee ballot, the student must complete and sign an absentee ballot request and submit it to the appropriate County Auditor.” The last statement in the second paragraph was removed. (changes made but not discussed).

Slide 19: Reversed the order of the websites as listed.

Absentee Ballot Problems

Slide 1: No changes recommended.

Slide 2: No changes recommended.

Slide 3: First statement changed from “A voter who has made an error on the voter’s absentee ballot in the June 8, 2010 Primary Election should:” to read “In the 2010 Primary Election, a voter who has made an error on the voter’s absentee ballot and who wants a new absentee ballot should:”. The words “Spoiled Ballot” in the first bullet point were made bold. The second set of bullet points were removed.

Slide 4: No changes recommended.

Slide 5: Changed words “go to the voter’s correct polling place” to “go to the polls” (changed but not discussed). Changed the words in the first bullet “Spoiled Ballot” to “Not voted – will vote at polls”. Removed words “and vote a regular ballot at the polls on Election day” from the first and second bullets. Added text box that reads “Iowa law requires each person to vote at the voter’s correct polling place.” (changed but not discussed)

Slide 6: No changes recommended

Slide 7: Changed the first statement to read “A voter who did not receive or who lost an absentee ballot can request a replacement absentee ballot. To do so the voter should:”. (NOTE: there is a typo on this slide that needs correction). Removed second bullet on original slide. Changed bullets to read:

· Contact the County Auditor

· Complete and sign a form stating the absentee ballot was lost or never received,

· And ask for a replacement absentee ballot.

Added 2 slides with Q & A answering the question “Can I vote at the polls on Election Day if I lost my absentee ballot?” (change made but not discussed).

Slide 8: Changed words “having already returned” to “returning”. Added “to the County Auditor’s Office?” to the end of the question.

Slide 9: Removed “Under Iowa law,” “voter’s,” and “for the Primary Election”. Changed “will need to” to “may”

Slide 10: Reversed the order of the websites as listed.

Returning Absentee Ballots

Slide 1: No changes recommended.

Slide 2: No changes recommended.

Slide 3: No changes recommended.

Slide 4: In the first statement removed the word “voted” and “to return it”. Added “from that person” at the end of the statement. In the second statement removed “voter’s”.

Slide 5: No changes recommended.

Slide 6: Changed bullets to numbers. Remove “confirm the voter is properly registered; then carefully follow instructions in the absentee packet, including”. In the first step changed ‘in” to “within”. In the second step changed “in” to “inside”. In the third step added “and political party affiliation” after “address”. Changed the fourth step to read “sign, date, and seal the Affidavit Envelope.” Added a fifth step which reads “put the Affidavit (Envelope?? Does this need to be added?) inside the Return Envelope”.

Slide 7: No changes recommended

Slide 8: Changed the first statement from “a voter’s absentee ballot must be” to “Iowa law requires that a voted absentee ballot must be:” (changes made but not discussed).

Slide 9: Changed “just drop” to “return”.

Slide 10: No changes recommended.

Slide 11: No changes recommended.

Slide 12: Reverse the order of the websites as listed.

Receiving Absentee Ballots

Slide 1: No changes recommended.

Slide 2: No changes recommended.

Slide 3: No changes recommended.

Slide 4: No changes recommended.

Slide 5: Changed the fourth bullet to read “the voter has marked the voter’s political party”.

Slide 6: No changes recommended.

Slide 7: Changed the second bullet to read “and/or failed to mark the voter’s political party”.

Slide 8: No changes recommended.

Added 2 slides with Q & A answering the question “How will I know if there was a problem with my Affidavit Envelope” (changed but not discussed).

Slide 9: No changes recommended.

Slide 10: Removed “the County Auditor will notify the voter that”. Moved “the voter can” to the opening statement. Changed the second bullet point to read “submit a new absentee ballot request form to receive a replacement ballot”. Changed language in third bullet point from “vote” to “cast”.

Slide 11: Reverse the order of the websites as listed.

Counting Absentee Ballots

Slide 1: No changes recommended.

Slide 2: No changes recommended.

Slide 3: No changes recommended.

Slide 4: No changes recommended.

Slide 5: Changed the slide to read “For the Primary Election, the absentee precinct election officials cannot begin counting absentee ballots until Election Day.” Added calendar image.

Slide 6: No changes recommended.

Slide 7: Added “No.” to the opening statement.

Slide 8: No changes recommended.

Slide 9: Changed bullet points to sequential numbering.

Slide 10: No changes recommended.

Slide 11: No changes recommended.

Slide 12: Reversed the order of the websites as listed.

Military and Overseas Voters

Slide 1: No changes recommended.

Slide 2: No changes recommended.

Slide 3: No changes recommended.

Slide 4: Changed “qualified” to “eligible”. Added language to the last bullet point that reads “meeting the same requirements as for other Iowans.” New paragraph added which reads “The FPCA form can be used to request absentee ballots for multiple elections, whereas the other two methods will provide a ballot only for the election specified in the request.” (changed but not discussed).

Slide 5: Removed last paragraph (changed but not discussed).

Slide 6: Slide changed to read “The FPCA form authorizes the County Auditor to mail absentee ballots to the voter for all federal elections held in the next two to four years, unless the voter specifies on the form:

· To receive ballots for local elections as well,

· Or to receive a ballot only for a single election.

Slide 7: Moved the word “to” to each individual bullet point. Capitalized “Absentee Ballot Request Form”. Added “or FPCA form” to the first bullet point. (changes made but not discussed). Changed “have” to “receive” and removed “transmitted to the voter” on the last bullet point.

Slide 8: Changed “eligible” to “qualified”. Changed “serving in the military or living outside the U.S.” to “located in an ‘imminent danger pay area’”. Removed “on these additional voting rights,” from the last statement.

Slide 9: Added “counting” between “for” and “these”.

Slide 10: Reversed the order of the websites as listed.

Health Care Facilities

Slide 1: No changes recommended.

Slide 2: No changes recommended.

Slide 3: No changes recommended.

Slide 4: Changed to read “After receiving requests from residents at a health care facility, the County Auditor works with the facility to schedule times for residents to vote absentee prior to the Primary Election. A bipartisan team of precinct election officials takes absentee ballots and voting supplies to the health care facility.”

Slide 5: No changes recommended.

Slide 6: No changes recommended.

Slide 7: Added statement “It is the voter’s choice to request such assistance.”

Slide 8: No changes recommended.

Slide 9: Changed the date to say “Election Day”.

Slide 10: No changes recommended.

Slide 11: No changes recommended.

Slide 12: No changes recommended.

Slide 13: No changes recommended.

Slide 14: Reversed the order of the websites as listed.

Voters With Disabilities

Slide 1: No changes recommended.

Slide 2: No changes recommended.

Slide 3: Changed the statement to read “Each precinct in Iowa at the 2010 Primary election is required to have a ballot-marking device that enables persons with blindness or visual impairment to vote privately.”

Slide 4: No changes recommended.

Slide 5: No changes recommended.

Slide 6: Changed “need not have” to “without” and “to” to “may”.

Slide 7: No changes recommended.

Slide 8: No changes recommended.

Slide 9: No changes recommended.

Slide 10: Added the word “that” between “requires” and “two”.

Slide 11: No changes recommended.

Slide 12: Italicized “voter chooses” in the first statement.

Slide 13: No changes recommended.

Slide 14: No changes recommended.

Slide 15: No changes recommended.

Slide 16: No changes recommended.

Slide 17: No changes recommended.

Slide 18: No changes recommended.

Slide 19: Reversed the order of the websites as listed.

Provisional Ballots

Slide 1: No changes recommended.

Slide 2: No changes recommended.

Slide 3: No changes recommended.

Slide 4: Changed “requires” to “allows” and “if” added to the end of the first statement. Bullets changed to read as follows:

· The voter registers to vote on Election Day and cannot prove identity and residency in the precinct,

· The voter requested an absentee ballot and does not surrender it to the precinct officials,

· The voter re-registers at a new address after having returned a voted absentee ballot,

· The voter has been asked to show identification and was unable to do so,

· The voter is voting in a precinct other than the one where the voter lives,

· Or the voter’s right to register and/or vote has been challenged by another voter

Slide 5: Changed “vote” to “cast”.

Slide 6: Changed “absentee voters and special precinct board after Election Day and prior to the official canvass of the election” to “bipartisan and nonpartisan absentee precinct election officials.” Changed the second statement to read “Like the precinct officials at each polling place, these officials are appointed by the chairs of the Democratic and Republican Parties and/or by the County Auditor.”

Added 2 slides with Q & A “When is the decision made whether to count a provisional ballot?”.

Slide 7: Removed “By taking the decision of whether a voter has the right to register and/or vote out of the heat of the moment,”.

Slide 8: Reversed the order of the websites as listed.

Election Results

Slide 1: No changes recommended.

Slide 2: No changes recommended.

Slide 3: Removed the Secretary of State’s website.

Slide 4: No changes recommended.

Slide 5: “Night” changed to “Day”.

Slide 6: No changes recommended.

Slide 7: Removed “that are received by Monday, June 14th".

Slide 8: No changes recommended.

Slide 9: No changes recommended.

Slide 10: Reversed the order of the websites as listed.

Voter Registration Questions

Slide 1: No changes recommended.

Slide 2: No changes recommended.

Slide 3: No changes recommended.

Slide 4: No changes recommended.

Slide 5: No changes recommended.

Slide 6: Removed “correct”.

Slide 7: No changes recommended.

Slide 8: Changed the language to 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.” (changes made but not discussed).

Slide 9: No changes recommended.

Slide 10: Changed “courthouse” to “County Auditor’s Office”.

Slide 11: Made Secretary of State possessive.

Slide 12: No changes recommended.

Slide 13: No changes recommended.

Slide 14: No changes recommended.

Slide 15: Made Secretary of State possessive.

Added 2 slides with Q & A of question “Can I get a copy of the voter registration form online?”.

Slide 16: Reversed the order of the websites as listed.

Absentee Voting Questions

Slide 1: No changes recommended.

Slide 2: No changes recommended.

Slide 3: Added “No. However,” to first statement. (changed but not discussed).

Slide 4: No changes recommended.

Slide 5: No changes recommended.

Slide 6: Changed “this information” to “information about who has requested absentee ballots?”.

Slide 7: No changes recommended.

Slide 8: No changes recommended.

Slide 9: Made the first and second statements one paragraph. Removed “absentee ballots” from second sentence.

Slide 10: No changes recommended.

Slide 11: Reversed the order of the websites as listed.

Additional Questions

Slide 1: No changes recommended.

Slide 2: Changed “times” to “time”.

Slide 3: Made the times larger and bold. (Changed but not discussed).

Slide 4: No changes recommended.

Slide 5: No changes recommended.

Slide 6: No changes recommended.

Slide 7: Combined the second and third statements into one paragraph (changed but not discussed).

Slide 8: No changes recommended.

Slide 9: No changes recommended.

Slide 10: No changes recommended.

Slide 11: No changes recommended.

Slide 12: No changes recommended.

Slide 13: Added bullet point that reads “or the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board at (515) 281-5208.

Slide 14: No changes recommended.

Slide 15: No changes recommended.

Slide 16: In the yellow text box added “This is an overvote and” before the second sentence.

Slide 17: In the yellow text box, added “see two votes and” after “the ballot scanner will”.

Slide 18: In the yellow text box, added “consider this an overvote and” after “the ballot scanner will”. Changed “either vote” to “a vote for either candidate.”

Slide 19: In the yellow text box added “see two votes and” after “the ballot scanner will”.

Added slide for the question “What should I do if I have overvoted a contest on the ballot?” The answer slide was already present.

Slide 20: No changes recommended.

Slide 21: No changes recommended.

Slide 22: changed the slide to read as follows:

An undervote occurs when:

· The voter has chosen not to vote one of the offices on the ballot,

· Or the voter can cast more than one vote in a race and chooses not to.

Slide 23: No changes recommended.

Slide 24: No changes recommended.

Slide 25: No changes recommended.

Slide 26: No changes recommended.

Slide 27: Reversed the order of the websites as listed.

Policy on Audio Recordings

Kline asked if auditors in Iowa should be asked to participate in the recording of audio for the slide presentation. He also asked whether the quality should be controlled by informing volunteers that their voice is not right for use. Grandia asked what the options are if all of the auditors are not invited. Slockett recommended Souix County Auditor Lois Huitink. Kline said he would like to hear various county auditors on the recordings because he thinks it personalizes it. Grandia asked if volunteers had previously been requested and there was low response. Kline said it was five weeks before the General Election. Grandia pointed out that it would require traveling to Cerro Gordo County to participate. Kline added that it was a very short time period. Dunham suggested bringing it to ISAC. Grandia agreed that it should be brought to ISAC or should otherwise be done just by people within the Cerro Gordo County Auditor’s Office. Grandia didn’t think too many people would get upset if it wasn’t offered to all auditors. Slockett asked if it is possible for a county to record the whole thing on their own. Kline said that he thinks so, as long as the content is approved by ISAC. Kline explained the complications that would entail. Grandia asked if it could be done at ISAC. Kline said that would be great and that it does not need to be done in his offices. There is more time now and more options. Grandia said it can be tried with different voices and if it doesn’t work then it can be done with one voice.

Slockett asked how many people did the audio recordings the last time. Kline responded four people, three from his staff. Slockett confirmed that only one auditor recorded it the last time. Kline pointed out that it was also a timing issue. Grandia asked if it was done at ISAC, when it would be done.

Kline said that what he is hearing is that it will be okay to invite other people to see what the response is. He asked if the job should be delegated to him to select whose voices are best to use. Slockett said that if multiple people do it, if every county would have multiple voices reading the presentation. He asked if it would be available the same way to everyone or if it would be available to different counties in different ways. Kline told Slockett he does not understand what Slockett is asking. Slockett asked if they were going to have one voice. Kline said there will be 18 presentations so it would be possible to have 18 different voices record. Grandia said he would open it up and see what the response is.

Slockett said he wants to talk about the concept of good quality. He said there is a reason why professional radio personalities sound like they do. Someone with good intentions may volunteer but may not have a professional sounding voice. Kline asked again if the committee wants to delegate to him the responsibility of telling people that their voice is not suitable. Slockett said that is what he is saying. Grandia asked how quickly Kline would be able to determine that. Kline said you can tell just when you hear them talk. Kline played a sample recording for the Committee. Grandia said he is fine with just having Huitink do all recording. Grandia said that if Kline feels like opening it up he should feel free to do so. Otherwise he would be fine with seeing if Huitink wants to do it again. Grandia said that he doesn’t want Kline to feel overburdened unnecessarily.

Slockett said that an email could be sent out that they have tentatively decided to let Huitink do it and if anyone else is interested they can let Kline know.

Plan for Future Edits

Kline asked if the Committee would like to go through the slides again after the edits are made or if they would like a final version sent out. Slockett said he thinks having a final version distributed would work and then everyone could review it.

Approval of Costs to Distribute CDs and DVDs and Travel Expenses

Motion by Grandia, second by Dunham to make a recommendation to the Executive Committee to reimburse costs associated with the Voter Education Project.

Kline said that Cerro Gordo County distributed CDs and DVDs without asking for permission from anyone or for reimbursement. He said he thinks those are legitimate expenses and that travel expenses for someone to drive to record the audio would also be a legitimate expense. Committee members are paid to attend meetings so no reimbursement should be issued for them. Slockett asked if any action is needed, if a recommendation needs to be made to the executive board. He said Cerro Gordo County should be reimbursed for costs and he doesn’t think anyone would object to that. Kline said he doesn’t know how he would submit a claim.

Slockett said that he appreciates all of the efforts of Kline and everyone in Cerro Gordo County.

Adjourned at 3:50 p.m.

______________________________________________________________________

Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor

By:

On the _______ day of _____________________, 2010

By Elizabeth Kies, Recording Secretary