To the editor:
My primary concern is what appears to be a very lackadaisical attitude and approach toward making a million dollar decision that could affect our voting process for several years.
I attended the Election Board meeting on Feb. 8 and was extremely surprised at how few questions were posed to the two potential vendors demonstrating their e-pollbooks. The process of validating a voter’s id and updating the voter file signifying they voted is a very simple programming process. All three vendors would execute virtually the same programming process so it comes down to hardware, operating systems and telecommunications protocol. ES and S failed to reserve adequate cloud storage space which resulted in their system failing. This is a gross oversite on their part and they must be held accountable and should be subject to damages. Their quick-fix modifications were unlawful and someone has to be accountable.
I would also hope there was contractual verbiage defining deliverables, performance and penalties should they default. If not, someone negotiated and signed a very bad contract. The new e-pollbook demonstrations were not Wi-Fi-connected so it did not actually replicate actual voting conditions. Wi-Fi connectability, transmission speed and storage space directly impact how any of these vendors perform.
I can only hope the lack of questions challenging these vendors was the result of the Election Board talking to other counties that utilize this hardware and software. If so, that’s great — there is no need to reinvent the wheel if other elections officials have already vetted it.
However, I do hope that whoever negotiates the next contract learns from their mistakes and considers a few points. First and most important is to thoroughly define the county’s expectations and deliverables. Specifically define and estimate how long it should take to vote.
Define how they will support actual voting conditions/volume and what they will do to immediately remedy hardware/software problems. All of these conditions must be explicitly defined and how the vendor guarantees data results and stress testing. Explicitly define remedies and how and why a contract can be terminated.
Lastly, technology rapidly changes and generally requires upgrades every three years. If a vendor truly wants to enter into a lasting relationship they need to participate in a natural migration upgrade path both for hardware and software. Without a natural migration path, hardware and software become outdated.
Given today’s technology, the actual data processing functionality of the e-pollbook and voting machines is truly very simple. A first year programming student could quickly code this application. It is easy to be impressed with the Graphical User Interface (GUI) iPad capabilities such as colors, touch pad and drag and drop when in reality there are several HTML products available that simplify these tasks.
I asked the RBM Consulting representative how long it would take for them to take what a paper ballot looks like and convert and load it onto the voting machine. He stated it would take approximately 1 ½ days, that’s reasonable. Therefore, switching vendors prior to the 2019 May election is a non-issue.
Due to lack of service and response I completely agree it is time to officially terminate the ES and S contract. The county should not pay any additional fees and seek damages. I also believe the recommendation to license the KNOWiNK e-pollbooks and RBM Consulting’s VR Systems voting machines are merited.
I do not agree with the county’s IT director’s comment about the Apple platform. Anything associated with Apple is generally more expensive. Given the e-pollbook and voting machine simple functionality, I am not convinced it justifies their asking price. Paying $1,847 for an IPad device that is going to be outdated within the next two to three years is expensive unless there is an upgrade migration path.
Bill Reynolds
Greenwood
