Meeting Date: January 8, 2013
Prepared by: Heidi Burch
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Authorize the Mayor to submit responses to the Grand Jury report on behalf of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
Description: On October 25, 2012, the Monterey County Civil Grand Jury released its Interim Final Report No. 1, entitled, "Election Integrity Upheld by Monterey County Elections Office," which assesses a variety of issues surrounding the elections process in the County. Specific to Cannel-by-the-Sea is a section entitled "Is Election Integrity Compromised by Private Contractors?" that discusses the City's decision to contract with the elections consulting firm, Martin & Chapman, for its April 2010 and 2012 municipal elections rather than use the services of the Monterey County Elections Department. The primary reason for doing so was the considerable savings involved. Carmel-by-the-Sea is, to date, the only city in Monterey County to have chosen this option.
The Grand Jury report concluded that City of Carmel-by-the-Sea has saved considerable money by contracting with Martin and Chapman to run its elections and does not question either the quality or integrity ofthe 2010 or the 2012 election. The Grand Jury report, however, noted in its Finding 6 that: "Although a private contractor appears to cost less than Monterey County Elections Department's bidfor running Carmel-by-theSea's stand-alone municipal elections in April 2010 and 2012, city officials did not take into account the actual costs of paid staff time for their own city clerk and staff."
Further, in Recommendation 5, it said: "The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea should consider all costs and the level of service provided by the competing choices when making a decision on who to use to conduct their elections in the future. "
On October 23, 2012, the report was delivered to the Mayor with instructions to prepare a response to Finding 6 and Recommendation 5 by January 24, 2013.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: N/ A
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Authorize the Mayor to respond to the Grand Jury by the January 24, 2013 deadline.
Important Considerations: The Monterey County Civil Grand Jury prepares its final report in January of each year, but may also produce interim reports such as this one. In any event, cities and agencies within the County are asked to prepare responses to issues that pertain to their respective jurisdictions.
Decision Record: The City prepares responses to the Grand Jury's Annual Report each year.
Reviewed by:
Jason Stilwell, City Administrator Date
2012 MONTEREY COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY
INTERIM FINAL REPORT NO. 1
ELECTION INTEGRITY UPHELD BY MONTEREY COUNTY
ELECTIONS DEPARTMENT
ELECTION INTEGRITY UPHELD BY MONTEREY COUNTY ELECTIONS DEPARTMENT
SUMMARY
The 2012 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury investigated the operations of the Monterey County Elections Department (MCED) with the specific purpose of looking into both voter registration fraud and election fraud. The allegation that an ineligible individual could easily obtain and cast a vote is factually inaccurate. Also, the present procedures of voter registration, validation of a voter's identity, and vote tabulation all appear adequate to protect election integrity in Monterey County.
The intention is to make every vote count. Even though there are elaborate procedures to safeguard against fraud, the procedures are costly and time consuming. A better designed, more user-friendly ballot and a more reliable tabulating machine are in order.
Voters who fail to provide MCED with their current status may disenfranchise themselves from voting, and their failure to follow voting instructions may invalidate their ballots. We recommend a vigorous voter education campaign before each election to deal with those problems.
Local municipalities have the choice of using the MCED or private contractors to conduct their elections. Carmel-by-the-Sea is the only city in Monterey County that uses a private contractor to conduct its local elections. While private contractors may appear to be less expensive than using the MCED, we recommend the city thoroughly review their decision in the future.
We concur with the 2007 Civil Grand Jury's recommendation that MCED needs a larger facility.
BACKGROUND
As many as 35 states have passed, or are considering passing restrictive legislation requiring voter Photo ID and/or proof of citizenship amid claims of rampant voter fraud. In California, AB663 was introduced by Assemblyman Mike Morrell, requiring a voter to present proof of identification with a photo ID before being permitted to sign the roster of voters and receive a ballot. The bill has not been put to a vote before the State Assembly as of this writing. The 2007 Civil Grand Jury Report suggested that the Monterey County Elections Department (MCED) had a rather lax voter registration procedure and an inadequate eligibility check. The 2012 Civil Grand Jury received reports that an absentee ballot had been sent to a deceased voter for the November 2010 election, and that two ballots for the June 2012 primary election were sent to the same person who had changed her marital status and name.
For these reasons, this grand jury investigated how the voter registry is maintained and updated,
and whether it was easy for an ineligible individual to obtain a ballot and vote.
The 2012 Grand Jury also reviewed the potential problem of election fraud, which results from
tampering with the electronic voting machines, the destruction of voted ballots, and/or egregious
errors in the tabulation of votes. This grand jury looked into the handling of absentee ballots
during an election, the ballot tabulation process in the MCED, and election integrity of a private
contractor conducted municipal election.
INVESTIGATION METHODOLOGY
We toured the facility of the MCED in late May 2012,just two weeks before the primary
election on June 5th where some absentee ballots had been received.
We interviewed the registrar of voters and other officials who led us through the procedures of
processing mail ballots and preparing the ballots for the precincts.
We also interviewed officials active in the election integrity committee of the League of Women
Voters ofMonterey Peninsula (LWVMP), because they had observed a private contractorconducted
stand-alone local election in Carmel-by-the-Sea.
The Grand Jury conducted research in the city of Carmel-by-the-Sea and the US Department of
Naturalization.
In addition, we reviewed public documents and published articles in newspapers pertaining to
MCED, and consulted publications by the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York
University School ofLaw, widely regarded as the nation's premier authority on voting and
elections. A bibliography is provided in the Appendixes.
FACTS RELEVANT TO THE INVESTIGATION
A. Voter registration and validation of identity
The full-time staff of the MCED has grown from 7 to 12 since the last time it was investigated
by the Civil Grand Jury in 2007. The office has become more professionally run. For example,
there was no handbook on elections before 2007, but a comprehensive, 53-page handbook titled
"Overview of Elections and How to Observe in Monterey County" has been compiled and
updated in May of this year. It is available online at the Elections web site
(' ) under the "Upcoming Elections" drop-down menu under
"Guidelines for Observers". (See Appendix A)
Among subjects explained in the handbook, and to the Jury orally, are voter registration
procedures, registration rules for new citizens and new residents, the federal Help America Vote
Act (HA VA), validation of a voter's identity, and maintenance of the Voter File. (See pp. 20-24
of Appendix A)
2
55
To register to vote for the first time, a person must be: (a) a U.S. citizen; (b) a resident of
California; (c) not in prison or county jail (serving a state prison sentence or serving a term of
more than one year in jail for a defined "low level" felony), or on parole, post release community
supervision, or post-sentencing probation for a felony conviction; (d) at least 18 years old on the
date of the election; and (e) has not been determined mentally incompetent by a court. The firsttime
voter applicant who registered by mail is required by the federal Help America Vote Act
(HA VA) and California Election Law to provide an I.D. number either from the California
Driver's License, or California Identification Card, or the last four digits of the person's Social
Security number.
The registrant is also required to sign the voter registration application form testifying that he or
she meets California's eligibility conditions under penalty of perjury, punishable by fines and
imprisonment or (if not a U.S. citizen) deportation from or refused entry to the United States.
When casting a Vote by Mail ballot, first-time voters must provide a copy of their identification
when they return their voted ballots.
Before a first-time voter is deemed eligible to cast a ballot, election officials have to validate the
voter registration database by identifying a voter's full name, date of birth, residence address,
mailing address if different from residence address, and either a complete California Driver's
License or State Identification, or if none, the last four digits of the voter's Social Security
number. There is a place on the Voter Registration Card for the person to indicate whether,
when and where the person has registered to vote before, so that the election officials can send a
cancellation notification to the previous county and/or state of residence.
When processing a voter's registration card, MCED will research the current file of voters for a
duplicate record of registration. If an existing record is found, the information from the new
registration card is applied to the existing record. If no existing record is found, a new record is
created for the new registrant. The Department then sends the local voter records to Cal Voter, a
database maintained by the California Secretary of State. At the state level, voter registration
records are compared to the California Department ofMotor Vehicles database and the Social
Security Administration records to validate the voter's identification. The State then returns a
report to the MCED indicating whether or not the voter's identity has been validated. If so, the
voter's record will be updated and then becomes a registered voter in Monterey County and is
eligible to receive a Voter Notification Card and voting materials.
New citizens and new residents must meet the same provisions as other eligible voters and must
register to vote no later than 15 days before an election. New citizens must be able to provide
their original Certificate ofNaturalization at registration. After the 15-day close of voter
registration, new residents may register and vote at the county election official's office no later
than 7 days prior to the election, and are eligible to vote for the President and Vice President
only. New citizens may register and vote at the county election official's office no later than the
3
56
close of the polls on Election Day. They will need to show their original Certificate of
Naturalization and will receive a full ballot.
If a voter appears in person at a polling station on election day, the voter must give his/her name
and address; the precinct officer will check it against the roster of voters in that precinct, repeat
the name and address of the voter, and require the voter to write down the name and address
which is matched against the roster ledger before he or she is given a ballot. If the name and
address are not found in the roster, the voter may be given a provisional ballot, which will not be
counted until the details of the voter are validated by the election department. A precinct officer
is empowered to challenge, on various grounds, the eligibility of the voter.
According to the California Secretary of State's Election Fraud Investigation Unit, proven cases
of impersonation and non-citizens casting ballots are in fact rare. In the years between 1994 and
2010, there have been only 23 convictions for double voting, 6 convictions for fraudulent voting,
and 4 convictions for non-citizen voting. One such conviction was in Monterey County.
Whether such frauds were committed in absentee ballots or when the person attempted to vote in
person, their minuscule numbers had no obvious effect on election outcomes, and indicate that
the current procedures described above are more than adequate to safeguard against voter fraud.
B. Maintenance of the Voter File
The MCED complies with State Election Law by following a "pre-election residency
confirmation procedure" 90 days prior to a primary or general election. This past March,
approximately 150,000 post cards were sent to voters with a forwarding notice, as a method of
validating the address for each voter before mailing official election materials. MCED then sent
to the approximately 15,000 voters who provided the United States Postal Service (USPS) with
forwarding addresses a second notice in an effort to confirm the accuracy of the information
received by the USPS. Of the 15,000 (orlO% of eligible voters) who provided the US Postal
Service with a forwarding address, about 1,000 voters had moved out of state. However, 10,000
other voters (about 6.6% of eligible voters) did not notify the USPS of their change of address.
Those voters remain on the county's voter roll, but are placed in the "inactive" file ofMCED and
will not receive voting materials. If they appear to vote on Election Day, they will be given a
provisional ballot, and a voter registration form. The provisional ballot will be counted only if
the information the voter provided in the registration form is validated.
MCED regularly updates the county's voter records by using the data of (i) the Secretary of
State, whose office prepares a file of potential duplicate records in the Cal Voter system by
checking a voter's name, driver's license and date ofbirth; (ii) another county or jurisdiction in
which the voter who has moved from Monterey County is now registered; and (iii) the USPS
which will not forward election mail except for the pre-election residency confirmation card.
It is possible for a voter to receive two ballots if the voter who has a name change re-registers to
vote (or the information of name change was automatically sent to MCED by DMV) after
4
57
MCED had already sent out the first ballot. In which case, the Department will suspend or
cancel the first ballot. Other checks are in place that prevents the acceptance of more than one
voted ballot from the same person. A name change can also be identified by the Cal Voter
system when the voter's date ofbirth, address and driver's license are checked for duplicates by
the office of the Secretary of State.
MCED relies on County Health Department's monthly report of deaths in the county, on records
provided by the Secretary of State of deceased voters found in the State Department of Health
Services' database, and by scanning of obituaries in local newspapers, to remove voters who are
deceased from the register. MCED also offers a form that the surviving family of a deceased
voter can fill out to remove the deceased from the voter file. Although an absentee ballot could
be sent out to a deceased voter, if death occurred just before a report was filed by the county
health officer. The multiple check points make it highly unlikely that the ballot can be misused.
The Superior Court of the Monterey County is required by State Election Law to supply MCED
on the first of April and September a list of names of people who are in prison or on parole for
the conviction of a felony. MCED will cancel that person's eligibility to vote.
If a voter has not participated in multiple consecutive elections for four years, MCED may purge
the voter from the voter register after sending an Alternate Residency Confirmation (ARC)
postcard, similar to the process described in B 1.
C. Processing Ballots to Assure "One Person, One Vote"
Because over 60% of voters in Monterey County cast their ballots by mail, it is imperative that
absentee ballots are delivered and handled in a timely manner. For the June primary election this
year, 101,000 absentee ballots were sent out in late April. Roughly 2,500 absentee ballots were
undeliverable despite the pre-election residency confirmation procedure described in B. Cost to
the MCED apart, such voter apathy, which manifests itself also in low voter turnout, (the rate
was 29% in the November 2011local elections, and 33.17% in this year's June primary election)
is a failure of citizenship.
After several hundred absentee ballots disappeared temporarily in the 2010 election, they were
subsequently found in the San Jose Post Office. Identifying those "lost" ballots is a testimony to
the set of procedures used by the MCED. The MCED procedures "knew" there were missing
ballots and the MCED team located the missing ballots and made sure the votes were properly
counted in the election. As a result of this occurrence, the MCED has devised a "trap ballot"
program with the USPS, whereby no mail-in ballots would leave any post office within the
boundary of Monterey County on Monday and Tuesday during the week of election. They
would be collected by staff from MCED and returned to the office.
Proper procedures, such as the requirement of the presence of two people in the rooms where
ballots are stored, the shredding of unused official ballots at the end ofElection Day, have been
5
58
put in place to assure the security of both unused official ballots and mail-in ballots. The same
security procedures are in place for the manual duplication of damaged ballots so that they can
be counted.
Upon receipt of an absentee ballot or provisional ballot, the elections officials compare the
signature and address on the envelope with those on the voter registration card, and if in doubt,
with signatures from previous ballots cast by the same voter that are all stored on the computer
system. If the signature and address match those on record, the ballot is accepted for processing.
If the signatures do not match, or the envelope is unsigned, the envelope will not be opened and
the ballot will not be counted. The reason for rejecting the ballot will be written on the face of
the identification envelope, and the cause is also recorded in the voter management system. No
ballot will be removed from the identification envelope until the time for processing has arrived.
Voters who failed to sign their name and address on the identification envelope will be contacted
by phone or mail and asked to come into the office to complete the voting process. Envelopes
that are damaged or not able to be scanned will be manually entered into the database in the
presence of two elections officials. In short, every effort is made by MCED to make sure that
every vote is counted.
To ensure that every device, such as the three central optical scanners used to tabulate ballots,
accurately records each vote, the "Pre-Election Logic and Accuracy Testing" is performed.
California Election Law also requires an official canvass of the vote, which is an internal audit of
the election to ensure the accuracy and validity of the results. This entails publicly conducting a
manual tally of absentee ballots, provisional ballots, and precinct ballots cast in 1% of the
precincts. Monterey County has 188 precincts. The random selection of 1% of the voting
precincts would mean that at least 2 precincts will be chosen. The manual tally will also be
conducted in one precinct for each race not included in the randomly selected precincts. The
additional precincts are also selected randomly.
In the June primary election, 7,138 ballots (that is 13.7% of the total 52,087 votes cast) were
damaged or unreadable by the central optical scanners (Optech 400-C scanners). The primary
reason was the voter's failure to follow instruction to connect the vote target with a single thin
line between the head and tail of the arrow. MCED manually duplicated those damaged ballots
to capture the intent of the voters so that they would be counted. Ballot supplication is
administered by a team of at least two people, it is time-consuming, and can be observed by any
member of the public.
Although the 2007 CGJ was satisfied with the security of the electronic voting equipment and
recommended the reinstatement of the Sequoia A CV Edge voting touch screen Direct Recording
Electronic machines (DREs), the machines were decertified by the Secretary of State Debra
Bowen in August 2007, unless they were modified to meet a list of conditions for increased
security. MCED has restored the paper ballots for most voters because of public distrust of
6
59
electronic voting machines. A certified electronic voting machine is installed in each polling
station to assist the physically disabled voters. Hundreds ofDREs (for which the county paid
about $4 million to purchase with subsidies from the federal government under HA VA in 2003)
now sit idly in the MCED office, even though they can meet the conditions of the Secretary of
State to be deployed for elections.
D. Is Election Integrity Compromised by Private Contractors?
Carmel-by-the-Sea is the only city in the county that chose not to enact an ordinance to move
their election date from April to consolidate their election with a statewide election such as a
June primary or a November general election. As a result, Carmel-by-the-Sea holds its standalone
municipal elections in April of even-numbered years.
The costs of running a stand-alone election are higher than ifthe April election was consolidated
with other countywide elections in June or November. The fmal cost for services rendered by
MCED to Carmel-by-the-Sea for the April2008 election was $19,768. It represented a 131.6%
increase over the previous election in 2006 that cost Carmel-by-the-Sea only $8496.90. There
was disagreement between the parties over the billing in 2008 because of errors in mailing
services and in the Spanish translation of voting instructions on the ballots. The dispute was
settled and Carmel-by-the-Sea paid MCED $17,291, after deducting the costs of errors.
In the fall of2009, MCED submitted a quote ofbetween $50,679 to $56,620 (or $20 per
registered voters) to conduct the Carmel-by-the-Sea election in April2010. Carmel-by-the-Sea
also solicited competitive bids from private contractors. With the help of the City Clerks
Association of California database, the city awarded the contract to Martin & Chapman whose
bid was $23,000 including postage.
According to the League of Women Voters ofMonterey Peninsula (LWVMP) whose officials
observed the April2010 election, Martin & Chapman performed well in the conduct of Carmelby-
the-Sea's April2010 municipal election. However, LWVMP identified certain weaknesses:
(a) the training, although sufficient attention was paid to ballot security, and (c) poll closing
procedures were confusing. The L WVMP did not observe the April20 12 election in Carmel-bythe-
Sea conducted by the same private contractor at a cost of $25,700.
Although Martin & Chapman appears to be much less expensive than MCED to conduct an
election in Carmel-by-the-Sea, a comparison of the true costs between the two is difficult.
MCED's estimate reflects the full expense incurred by MCED for hourly wages, overtime and
double-time for county staffers and temporary workers, as well as transportation, supplies,
postage, and the rental of voting equipment. Under the California Election Code, the city clerk
of Carmel-by-the-Sea is empowered to act as the city's "election official" and to conduct and
canvass the city's election. The city clerk still needs to use MCED's voter register data and their
computer to verify voter signatures. Carmel-by-the-Sea did not calculate the actual costs of paid
staff time for the City Clerk and other city staff in preparing and canvassing the election.
7
60
E. Office Space and Equipment of MCED
MCED's biggest challenge is lack of space for storage and for vote counting during election
time. It has a 5-year lease, due to expire on December 31, 2015, on its present office on Salinas,
which is approximately 12, 011 square feet. The department also leases three different storage
areas at the cost of$1,625 per month. To access materials from off-site locations involves extra
labor and travel time, at an annual average cost of approximately $1, 100 a year (it varies
depending on the number of elections being conducted during the year). MCED needs about
25,000 square feet to operate efficiently.
The MCED has several hundred decertified Sequoia electronic voting machines at its facility.
The MCED received the money (approximately $4 million) to purchase these machines shortly
after the enactment ofthe Federal Help America Vote Act (HA VA) was passed in 2002. While a
few of these machines are able to be used to support voters with disabilities, the California
Secretary of State decertified these units in 2007, unless they could be modified to be tamperproof.
No action has been successfully taken to "fix" these machines, so over $4 million dollars
of equipment remains idle in the MCED office. This equipment also consumes a significant
amount of floor space.
FINDINGS
F 1. The allegation that voter fraud is "rampant" is unfounded. California already has a law in
place that requires voters to produce ID when they register to vote. The present procedures of
setting up multiple check points in voter registration and validation of a voter's identity that is
conducted by MCED appears more than adequate to safeguard voter fraud.
F2. MCED has made strong efforts to carry out the "one man, one vote" mandate by
regularly updating its database, reaching out to every eligible voter and trying to make every vote
count. But despite its effort, almost 6.6% of eligible voters failed to provide updated personal
information (such as change of address, change of name) to the MCED or to the Department of
Motor Vehicles and may therefore disenfranchise themselves.
F3. MCED relies primarily on county health officer's monthly report of death in the county, and
on obituaries published in local newspaper to update its voter register. The Secretary of State
also depends on the State Department of Health Services database to provide the counties with
records of deceased voters.
F4. 13.7% of the ballots cast by voters in the most recent election were damaged and unreadable
by the optical vote tabulating scanner, primarily because voters failed to follow voting
instructions. MCED had to duplicate over 7,000 ballots in order to capture the voter's intent.
The process is both costly and time consuming.
8
61
F5. In 2002, the county spent almost $4 million of tax-payers money purchasing touch-screen
voting machines, software and auxiliary equipment such as printers. The voting machines were
decertified by the Secretary of State in August 2007, but can be certified if they are modified to
meet specific conditions. Most of them are sitting idle in the office ofMCED, only some are
used by the disabled during election day.
F6. Although a private contractor appears to cost less than MCED's bid for running Carmel-bythe-
Sea's stand-alone municipal elections in April2010 and 2012, city officials did not take into
account the actual costs of paid staff time for their own city clerk and staff.
F7. The office ofMCED in Salinas on Highway 68 E is inadequate for its operation. Possibly
usable equipment lies idle. The department has to budget an extra $20,600 annually for leasing
three storage facilities and the expense of staff time traveling to them to retrieve materials.
RECOMMENDATIONS
R1. We recommend that all county supervisors and every elected official in the county visit
MCED to become thoroughly acquainted with the complex procedures in voter registration,
validation of identity and vote tabulation that assures election integrity. The MCED reports to
the Monterey County Board of Supervisors and it is understood that only one of the five sitting
members has officially visited the MCED office.
R2. We recommend a robust voter education campaign that not only urges voters to register and
vote, but urges voters to update their personal information with MCED if they change address or
names, or if a family member has become deceased. Clearer instruction should be given on how
to vote by mail or use the ballot. Lastly, voters should also be urged to read the voting materials
mailed to them, so they become better informed voters on the issues.
R3. We recommend that MCED and the Secretary of State utilize the Social Security
Administration's master death index to regularly update the voter registration database.
R4. Because of the high rate (13.7%) of damaged ballots due to voters' failure to follow
balloting instructions, we urge the consideration of a better designed and more user-friendly
ballot for future elections. One alternative may be the redeployment of touch-screen voting
machines once public confidence in tamperproof electronic devices is fully restored. A different
way of tabulating votes should also be considered, because the three central optical high-speed
scanners had problems "reading" a high percentage of ballots in the last election.
R5. The city of Carmel-by-the-Sea should consider all costs and the level of service provided by
the competing choices when making the decision on who to use to conduct their elections in the
future.
9
62
R6. We recommend that the Board of Supervisors support a proposal by the MCED for a
different facility with at least 25,000 square feet space mentioned earlier in order to provide
adequate space during the election period and to provide on-site storage of all MCED property
and records.
R7. The MCED should work with the Secretary of State to resolve the issue ofthe idle Sequoia
Voting Machines.
RESPONSE REQUIRED
Monterey County Board of Supervisors
Findings: Fl., F2., F3., F4., F5., F7.
Recommendations: Rl., R2., R3., R4., R6., R7.
Mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea:
Finding: F6.
Recommendation: R5.
APPENDDffiS
Appendix A: Overview of Elections and How to Observe in Monterey County
(http://www.montereycountyelections.us/pdf/2012%20Guide%20to%20Process%20and%200bs
erving%20Elections.pdf)
Appendix B: Bibliography
AB 663 BILL ANAL YSIS.doc
Audit ofMCED absentee ballot program cost.6-10-2010.pdf
Ballot designs and voting by Brennan Center.2008.pdf
CAOWeeklyReport6.11.12.pdf
L WVMP Carmel election rpt.pdf
Richard L. Hansen, "A Detente Before the Election", The New York Times, August 6, 2012.
10
63
January 9, 2013
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
POST OFFICE BOX CC
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CA 93921
(831) 620-2000
Honorable Timothy P. Roberts, Presiding Judge
Monterey County Superior Court
240 Church Street
Salinas, CA 93901
Re: 2012 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury Interim Final Report No. 1
Dear Judge Roberts,
The City Council of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea has read the 2012 Monterey County Civil
Grand Jury Interim Final Report No. 1 and, in accordance with your request, respectfully offers
the following responses:
Response to Finding 6 that: "Although a private contractor appears to cost less than
Monterey County Elections Department's bid for running Carmel-by-the-Sea's stand-alone
municipal elections in April 2010 and 2012, city officials did not take into account the actual
costs of paid staff time for their own city clerk and staff."
The City Council disagrees wholly with the finding.
Virtually all of the election responsibilities were conducted d.uting regular business hours. The
Carmel City staff members responsible for conducting the election are salaried, at-will
employees not entitled to overtime or double time. As such, there are also no additional costs
to the City for staff working beyond eight hours per day.
The primary responsibility for which City staff was responsible when contracting with Martin &
Chapman, but for which they would not have been responsible if contracting with the County
Elections Department, is that of signature verification. While the 15 total staff hours dedicated
to this responsibility fell within regular business hours, an additional $116.15 was expended by
the City for staff to travel to the Elections Department office in Salinas to verify signatures. Had
staff not been salaried, the staff time would have amounted to $610.56.
64
Further, in Recommendation 5, it said: "The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea should consider all
costs and the level of service provided by the competing choices when making a decision on
who to use to conduct their elections in the future."
The City Council would like to report that the recommendation has been implemented.
Aside from the $33,000 cost savings achieved by contracting with Martin & Chapman, the level
of service provided by the County Elections Department was also considered in the decisionmaking
process by the City Council.
An important consideration in making the decision to utilize a contractor for the 2010 election
was the length of time it took for the County Elections Department to tabulate and certify the
results of the 2008 election. As noted in a the attached 2008 article in the Monterey County
Weekly, staff and candidates waited until midnight for ballots to be counted during the 2008
election . Prior to 2008 and during the 2010 and 2012 elections, results were determined within
one to two hours after the closing of the polls. As has been tradition since the City's
incorporation in 1916, all of the candidates and supporters gather at City Hall to hear the
results and for a celebratory party. All ballots are counted after the closing of the polls, in the
City Council Chambers, in front of all those who gather.
Additionally, with respect to levels of service, the County Registrar takes the full 28 days as
allowed by law to certify the election results for November and June elections. Election results
are certified the day after the April election by Martin & Chapman. This is of particular
importance to the City of Carmel-by-the Sea. As the total number of registered voters is very
small (2,741 registered voters in 2012) races are often decided by very few votes. For example,
our City Council race in 2008 was decided by only 22 votes. Certified results for the November
2012 election, conducted by the County Elections Department, were provided to the City 28
days after the election. Should the City have consolidated with the County, our local municipal
race results could have been held in limbo for almost a month.
The City Council has been diligent in both its research of the providers and its analyses of the
election process during and after the 2010 and 2012 elections. Please let us know if you need
any further information.
Respectfully submitted on behalf ofthe City Council of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea,
Mayor Jason Burnett
City of Ca rmel-by-the-Sea
